Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Pensions

Mr. Terry Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to encourage people to take out value-for-money pensions. [4334]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): We want to ensure that all pensioners can share fairly in rising national prosperity. We will support and strengthen the existing framework for occupational pensions. We will develop stakeholder pensions to offer secure, flexible, value-for-money pensions, particularly to those who cannot join an employer's occupational pension scheme, or whose pay is low, or who have intermittent wages, and for whom personal pensions may therefore be unsuitable.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Over several years, there has been a sad decline in the membership of occupational pension schemes. How will my hon. Friend tackle the effects of, for instance, the flexible labour market on the membership of such schemes?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right: there has been a sharp decline in the membership of occupational pension schemes, particularly among men. Part of that was caused by the mis-selling of personal pensions to members of occupational schemes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the action that my colleagues in the Treasury are taking to sort the problem out.
Many people in the flexible labour market cannot join an employer's occupational scheme, because there is not one on offer. They may be badly hit by high fees and charges for existing personal pensions. It is to give those people some of the advantages of occupational pensions that we wish to develop stakeholder pension schemes.

Mr. Brooke: Does the Minister acknowledge the international recognition of the extremely sound basis of British pension provision, as endorsed by a recent report by the International Monetary Fund? Will he give an assurance that in no particular will the Government threaten the soundness of that basis?

Mr. Denham: It is certainly true that the size of funded occupational pensions is a strength. Occupational pensions have always been supported by Labour Governments; indeed, membership of occupational pension schemes has peaked under Labour Governments and declined under Conservative Governments. I hope that the strength of the British pension scheme in that regard will continue to be recognised, but we must tackle the problems faced by people who have no opportunity to take advantage of a good, value-for-money employer's occupational scheme.

Mr. Olner: Will the Minister also take account of the huge black hole that has been created by the fact that many workers are now on temporary wage contracts, and cannot enter occupational pension schemes? Will he do anything to remedy the problem?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. It is one of the difficulties to which I have been referring. Some of the personal pension schemes that are currently on the market will impose very high charges, and will take a large proportion of people's savings if, for example, they can enter and stay in the schemes only for a few months or years. That is why the Government place emphasis on developing value-for-money, flexible schemes that will not unfairly penalise people who change their jobs or spend periods outside the labour market.

Lone Parents

Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her policy on benefits for lone parents. [4335]

The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age, and we are committed to a package of measures that will help lone mothers to move off benefits and into work so that they and their children can be better off.
Decisions on benefits for lone parents will be announced at the time of the Budget.

Mr. Lansley: Does the right hon. Lady agree with her right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said:
Tax and benefit policy was squeezed to help single parents"—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members do not quote at Question Time. Paraphrase, please.

Mr. Lansley: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead made it clear that he felt that a policy of differential benefits for lone parents should be abolished. Will the right hon. Lady now say that she will provide the same benefits for two-parent families as are provided for lone parents?

Ms Harman: What we are concerned about is the differential in opportunities between married or cohabiting women and lone mothers. When her youngest child reaches the age of five, the married or cohabiting woman will often start to look for work. When she is able to go out to work and contribute to her family budget, the family is better off. However, lone mothers remain trapped on benefit and after 18 years of Conservative Government policies, about 1 million lone mothers are on income support and bringing up 2.2 million children on the breadline. We want to ensure that lone mothers have opportunities to work so that, like lone mothers in the rest of Europe, they do not have to bring up their children on benefits.

Mr. McAllion: Like my right hon. Friend, I accept that the best policy on benefits for lone parents is to help them to get off benefit and back into work. Bearing that in mind, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the predicament of the Whitfield sitter service and Whitfield community nursery in my constituency, both of which provide affordable, quality child care to lone parents to enable them to get back into work? Because their urban programme funding runs out this year, both those organisations face closure later this year.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wholly counterproductive to allow such excellent organisations to close because of a lack of public funding when their closure will inevitably force lone parents out of work and back on to welfare, leading to an increase in public expenditure, which I am sure neither my right hon. Friend nor the Chancellor wish to see?

Ms Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Whitfield community nursery in his constituency. He is right to say that child care is essential to underpin the opportunities for lone mothers to go to work. That is why the Government consider the national child care strategy to be of central importance. It will ensure a choice of affordable, high-quality accessible child care so that lone mothers can be sure that, when they go to work, their children are playing and learning safely with other adults. Together with my ministerial colleagues, I shall look into the issue of the nursery in his constituency.

Mr. Duncan Smith: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State and her Ministers to their places and wish them the best of luck? We shall try to be constructive in opposition and shall look at each of the Government's proposals on its merits. However, we shall also judge them against the high level of expectation that they raised in the run-up to the general election.
Many times in the run-up to the election, the right hon. Lady, made it quite clear that she did not believe in equal benefits for single and two-parent families. She has made it clear that she would reverse the Conservative Government's proposals. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has said, on 28 November the Minister of State made it quite clear that he took a different view.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the right hon. Lady is unlikely to have her way in the Department in this case. Is she absolutely determined to stand by her commitments to reverse what we instigated and, if she does not get her way, what will she do?

Ms Harman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman and his shadow colleague to their new positions. I also welcome his statement that he will make constructive proposals and engage in constructive debate. If the hon. Gentleman considers what I said in the run-up to the general election and looks at Labour party documents from that time, he will see that our approach was made absolutely clear. We want what lone mothers want for themselves and their children, which is to be better off in work than on benefit.
The Policy Studies Institute recently completed research which shows that a lone mother with two children moving off income support and into work on in-work benefits are likely to be £50 a week better off. At the heart of the Government's approach is a welfare-to-work strategy with the opportunities that lone parents seek for themselves. The Government will back them to ensure that they get those opportunities.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Professor Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the rules governing eligibility for the jobseeker's allowance. [4336]

Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes she plans to make to the jobseeker's allowance. [4338]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Our welfare-to-work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities. A programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that the jobseeker's allowance contributes to achieving our objectives.

Professor Webb: In reviewing the jobseeker's allowance, will the Minister examine cases such as that of my constituent, Mr. Peter Free, who is undertaking a worthwhile course and who has been told by the job centre to give it up, despite doing well in the first year of the course, in favour of a dead-end job? Is that the Government's policy, or will they break from the previous Government's policy?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of that constituency case. Clearly, within the evaluation of the jobseeker's allowance, we are carefully considering the way in which education and training interact with the need to return to work. I have considered carefully the constituency case. I do not think that it would be appropriate to discuss the precise details in the Chamber, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, after questions today, I will discuss the matter further with him to ensure that his constituent is given the correct advice on training and job opportunities.

Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear that we are reviewing the benefit, but I wonder whether the Minister—I mean my hon. Friend; I have just got to get into the habit—could help me with a few immediate points. What have we done in the meantime to ease administration of the benefit, to ease the petty meanness, to protect the staff and to ease the strain on them, all of which we exposed powerfully when the legislation was passed?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, because it is essential that we give credit to the staff who deal with claimants for the benefit. We have to ensure that it is administered efficiently and effectively, and that it forms a proper platform of our welfare-to-work programme. I assure him that his points will form part of the evaluation.

Mr. Forth: Given the Minister's reply to the original question, what will be the difference between his approach to the jobseeker's allowance and that of the previous Government?

Mr. Bradley: The most essential part of the jobseeker's allowance is integral to our welfare-to-work programme: that we put forward options that give genuine opportunities for people to return to work, because work

is what they want. That is the difference between this Government and the previous Government, who did not put work at the top of the agenda.

Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend carefully consider the way in which people with learning difficulties are treated in the assessment for the allowance?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of his particular concern on this issue from previous correspondence and from the occasions when he has raised the matter in the House. I assure him again that, within the evaluation, the problems of people with learning difficulties will be fully taken into account in our welfare-to-work programmes.

State Pension

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations she has received on the level of the state pension. [4337]

The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Government are committed to reviewing all the main areas of insecurity affecting pensioners. In that review, pensioners' views will be important, but the review will take place within a framework of trying to achieve two objectives. The first is how we ensure pensioners share in this country's rising prosperity; the second is how we automatically deliver more help to the poorest pensioners.

Mr. Amess: Will the Minister tell the House and my constituents in Southend, West what proportion of average retirement income the state pension accounts for today, and what proportion he expects it to account for in five years' time?

Mr. Field: All that I can say is that, under the previous Government, the state pension's value fell by 6 per cent: from 21 per cent. of average earnings to 15 per cent. of average earnings. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer to see the successes of our reviews and of our economic strategy before anyone can sensibly answer that question.

Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend give us the assurance—I am sure that he can—that, in any discussions about the level of the pension, his Department will keep in the closest possible contact with the various pensioners' groups and organisations? Does he agree that one of the problems in dealing with pensioners' groups is the profound sense of betrayal they feel, which they certainly felt and expressed in the general election, about the way they were treated by the previous Government, when, despite the massive advantages of income from North sea oil, they did not get a fair deal?

Mr. Field: I was trying to make that point, although I did not do so as effectively as my hon. Friend, in my supplementary answer to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). It is crucial not only that we ensure that pensioners have a stake in the rising prosperity of this country and that we listen carefully to the voices of pensioners, but that we widen the debate so that all of us


realise that most of us will one day be pensioners and that we have an interest in the evolving pension debate which the Government are leading.

Mr. Burns: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer, will he explain the comments that the Secretary of State made last October at the Labour party conference, which led many people to believe that, in government, she would consider raising the linkage of state pension to wages rather than prices? Is he aware that, if that were to happen by only 1 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation, it would cost £300 million in the first year and £4.5 billion by the fifth year?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where that money would come from and whether the Treasury is in agreement—or was it simply a question of seeking to give hints, nods and winks to interest groups which the Government had no intention of fulfilling once they came to power?

Mr. Field: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. I suggest that, if he wishes to make a constructive contribution to the evolving welfare debate, it would be better if he did not misrepresent what my right hon. Friend said and accepted that parties are bound by their election manifestos. If he has not had a copy of our election manifesto, I shall be happy to send him one.

Benefit Services

Ms Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's proposals to improve services to those claiming benefit. [4339]

Ms Harman: We will modernise the social security system to improve services to claimants. We want a system that is speedy, fair and efficient; the system that we have inherited from the previous Government is complex, lengthy and unfair.

Ms Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that it is very slow and inefficient for people to have to wait on average six months, or up to a year in some instances in my constituency, for an appeal or a decision on appeal? Is not that the direct responsibility of the previous Government? Does she further agree that by simplifying the decision and appeals system, the Government will make a start on modernising the welfare state?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. She said that, once an appeal against benefit refusal has been lodged, it can take up to six months on average for the appeal to be determined. Unfortunately, some cases lodged as much as two years ago are still awaiting a determination of appeal. It is not acceptable that it can take people up to two years to find their way through the 13 different appeals systems to get their appeal determined.
The system treats people unfairly: on the one hand, it offers people the right to appeal but, on the other, it tells many people at the end of a very long process that they had no chance of success anyway. That is not acceptable. We shall modernise the system to ensure a

speedy, fair and efficient service for people who appeal against benefit decisions, and I shall be making further announcements shortly.

Mr. Viggers: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a constituent of mine recently fainted after standing in a queue for a benefit payment? Is it not possible for the Government to follow the practice of virtually every private sector organisation and arrange a proper queuing system in benefit offices or, better still, treat applicants with respect and provide chairs?

Ms Harman: In the circumstances described, it is totally unacceptable that a constituent should faint while waiting to be seen at a caller office. The solution will be not only a fair queuing system but speedier service delivery and a speedier response to people who visit Benefits Agency offices. The system for telephoning offices also must be modernised and updated, in line with people's expectations about what a modern service should deliver.
Queueing has ceased to be a feature in the former Soviet Union, and it should not be a feature of our Benefits Agency. We are determined to shorten the time that people must wait for answers to their queries. If possible, we want their queries to be dealt with on the telephone, so that they do not have to queue.

Mr. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend realise that complexities in the mortgage interest payment system cause many difficulties for people who are eligible for mortgage benefit? The system should be simplified so that Benefits Agency staff can get it right and avoid causing problems for people with mortgages.

Ms Harman: We certainly want simpler claim forms and a system that is easier for claimants to understand. We also want a system that is understood by staff to be fairer and more efficient. Most often people have problems paying their mortgages and have to visit Benefits Agency offices because they are without work. We should ensure not only that people do not get into problems paying their mortgages but that they are advised and helped back into work. For people of working age, the social security system should not be about a handout but about a hand-up. Most people of working age who have mortgage problems have such problems because they are not in work. Welfare to work is a central part of the Government's strategy.

Mr. Swinney: As we await the Government's review of Benefits Agency regulations on timetabling and dealing with appeals, will Ministers allocate more resources to solving the immediate crisis, which is causing enormous hardship for people in very vulnerable situations? Those people's lives have been shattered because the Benefits Agency cannot speedily resolve its quagmire of decisions.

Ms Harman: Before the general election and in our manifesto, we said that we would stick to existing departmental spending totals. However, our priorities are different from those of the previous Government. One of our priorities is to improve service delivery, both at first instance and on appeal. We believe that there is much that we can do within the system to improve services for


claimants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and across the country. We will soon be making further announcements on that matter.

Benefits Agency Change Programme

Mr. John Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to reform the Benefits Agency's change programme. [4340]

Ms Harman: We are determined to modernise the social security system. Before the election, we stated our views about the Benefits Agency change programme and said that we would take a practical, non-ideological approach to the best way of delivering public services. The previous Government said, "Public bad; private good." We ask whether it works and whether it is fair—to those who use the services, to those who work in the services and to the taxpayer. Those are our criteria.

Mr. Cryer: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is she aware, however, that the change programme instituted by the previous Government constituted an attack on the public sector, an attempt to destroy public sector jobs and an attempt to make private greed out of poverty?

Ms Harman: Before the election, we stated what our approach would be, and said that our approach would be different from that of the previous Government. As I said, the previous Government believed that everything that was delivered by the public sector must be bad, and that everything must be privatised. We take a practical, non-ideological view. We have said that we will seek opportunities for extra investment by the private sector, that we will keep within spending totals and that we will review all projects that are in the pipeline. We have already met the trade union side. My ministerial team is examining proposals, project by project, and meeting the staff involved. My team is also discussing the proposals with the appropriate trade union side. We have stated the criteria against which we will review each project.

Mr. Collins: As part of her reforms, will the Secretary of State take steps to accelerate the payment of child benefit to parents under pressure, particularly those who are worried by the Government's policies as their children attend grammar schools?

Ms Harman: We are always concerned to ensure prompt, efficient, speedy payment of benefit, irrespective of the school choice of the mother who is entitled to receive that benefit on behalf of her children.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is real concern about the reduction of the administrative budget available to the Benefits Agency over the next two years, as that may prejudice not only customer and claimant services but the security of the staff involved and the uptake of means-tested benefits? That is particularly true in rural areas.
The right hon. Lady may be aware that today in the East Edinburgh and Borders district some changes are being made involving the relocation of processing and there are local concerns that that is the thin end of the wedge. Can she give us an assurance that the Benefits

Agency will secure particularly remote local offices so that the service to claimants continues and the uptake of benefit is not prejudiced by the change programme over the next two years?

Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman has rightly identified two of our objectives: first, to keep within the spending total and secondly to improve services to claimants. I am well aware of the challenge of ensuring that good services are delivered in rural areas. We need some new, innovative thinking about how we deliver services to people in rural areas.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the proposed change in the Benefits Agency offices in his constituency and we shall be looking closely at that issue. However, one of our central objectives is to provide a better service to claimants, unlike the previous Government who thought that anyone who claimed benefits was a scrounger and that however bad the treatment they received, it was too good for them. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that the services must improve.

Income-related Benefits

Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review social security income-related benefits. [4342]

Mr. Field: The Government are committed to a wide-ranging review of social security, including income-related benefits. Its aim is to reward work, savings and honesty.

Mr. Merchant: In the past, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and other Labour Members condemned family credit as a subsidy for poor employers. Do the Government now plan to phase out family credit in the near future?

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that my hon. Friend made any such accusation. A review is under way, but I should be very surprised if that were its conclusion.

Dr. Iddon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, despite predictions to the contrary, the previous Administration managed to double the number of people receiving benefit? Does he agree that in one in five households where people could work, no one is actually working and that that is one of the worst records in the industrialised world?

Mr. Field: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. In respect merely of income-related benefits, under the previous Administration the numbers claiming means-tested help rose from 10 million to 15 million. Part of the reason for that is that work is unevenly distributed. One of the aims of our review is to ensure that the benefit system does not act as a hidden hand, ensuring that some households get many jobs and others get none.

Mr. Brazier: In setting out the laudable aims of his review, will the Minister tell us what co-ordination there


is with a similar review in the Department of the Environment on housing policy, that, on its own declared aim, seeks to revert to giving priority in two identical cases to someone who is nominally homeless—even with connivance—over those who have honestly taken their place in the queue?

Mr. Field: I can happily reassure the hon. Gentleman that there will be close co-ordination between Departments in the review.

Madam Speaker: But there should not be such close co-ordination at Question Time.

Pensioners (Income Support)

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the proportion of pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled. [4343]

Mr. Denham: One in four pensioners receive or are entitled to income support, but more than one in three of them do not receive the income support to which they are entitled. We are committed to examining ways to bring more automatic help to the poorest pensioners and are commissioning research to establish why so many pensioners do not receive the income support to which they are entitled.

Mr. Campbell: Is it not true that the reason for non-take-up of the benefit is not personal choice, as the previous Government claimed, but the stigma of claiming income support? Is it not also true that non-take-up of the benefit is greatest among women? Just under 1 million women do not claim the benefit and do not have a second pension. Will my hon. Friend give a high priority to examining second pensions for women?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Administration claimed that benefits were not taken up by choice, but they never undertook any substantial research to establish the real situation. Without prejudging the outcome of our research, I think that it is likely that we shall find that stigma is an important factor in non-take-up and that there are many older single women without additional pension rights among those who are going without the support of the benefit. In the longer term, we should enable more people to develop an adequate second pension on top of their basic state pension, so that they can enjoy security in retirement.

Mr. Baldry: Can the Under-Secretary adduce any evidence, in relation to pensioners or anyone else, for the Secretary of State's assertion a little while ago at the Dispatch Box that the previous Administration thought that anyone who claimed benefit was a scrounger? Does he not think that, if we are to have a sensible debate on welfare reform, we need a more mature approach than was demonstrated by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Denham: The message that my right hon. Friend spoke about was evident throughout the 18 long years of the previous Administration—in everything that they said, in their demonstrable lack of interest in why the poorest

pensioners go without assistance and in their casualness about the quality of service offered by the social security system.

Mr. Wicks: Given that only pensioners in receipt of income support are eligible for cold weather payments during the severest weather, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a scandal that, in Britain, every winter—I suspect that this will be the case again during the coming winter—30,000 elderly people die from cold-related medical conditions? Will he initiate a take-up campaign for income support as soon as possible, so that people in their 80s and 90s who have served this country well do not have to make the terrible judgment this winter whether to heat their property or to eat?

Mr. Denham: It is a scandal that so many pensioners suffer in that way and that this country's record is apparently so much worse than that of other European countries, including those that suffer a more hostile winter climate. We are concerned to encourage take-up and have commissioned research to understand why pensioners do not receive income support—which is a passport to other important benefits—so that we can deal with it as effectively as possible.

Retirement Pensions

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans Her Majesty's Government have to increase the retirement pension beyond the increase in the retail prices index: and if she will make a statement. [4345]

Mr. Denham: We shall announce the uprating of the retirement pension at the normal time. Our manifesto said that we would increase it at least in line with prices.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that it would be helpful if the Government could say whether they intend to increase the pension above the rate of the retail prices index in the longer term? In the meantime, will he consider carefully the possibility of linking pension rises to a separate pensioners' price index that takes full account of the special needs and costs faced by elderly people compared with those faced by others in the community?

Mr. Denham: That is an interesting question from an hon. Member who supported the previous Administration for most, if not all, of the past 18 years, during which neither of the two things that he has suggested was done. In contrast to the previous Government, we shall have a review of the central areas of insecurity for elderly people, which will include the basic state pension and its value. Again in contrast to the previous Administration, we will listen to the views of pensioners and pensioner organisations during that review.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that about the last group of people who should criticise us on pensions are the Tories, whose behaviour in office was quite disgraceful? Is he also aware that many pensioners believe that they should receive an increase above the retail prices index, that they have a very strong case indeed and that they have a great deal of support on the Government


Benches? One hopes that it will not be long before the Government are in a financial position to give pensioners the rewards to which they are perfectly entitled.

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right in his judgment of the previous Administration. We shall increase the basic state pension at least in line with prices. We shall have a review of the central area of insecurity facing pensioners to ensure that we hear their voices and listen to their concerns. We have made it clear that we are committed to examining ways to get more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. I look forward to the cut in VAT on fuel, which will cut pensioners' winter fuel bills.

Mr. Gibb: Are the Government still considering the proposal for a flexible decade of retirement from age 60, which the Secretary of State said before the election would involve a lowering of the basic state pension by £20 a week?

Mr. Denham: My right hon. Friend did not make any such statement before the election. We did say before the election that there are attractions in a flexible decade of retirement and that we would wish to move in that direction. I have no doubt that it is one of the matters that will be considered in the pensions review. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no question of anybody who is retired today or who retires at state retirement age in future receiving anything other than the right pension for that age.

Housing Benefit

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to issue new housing benefit regulations. [4346]

Ms Harman: We gave a commitment before the election to review the regulations that extended the single room rent to people aged 25 and over. We have done so—in the context of our commitment to keeping within spending totals.
We have listened to the advice and views of hon. Members—including those on the Environment Committee, on which I know my hon. Friend played a major part—local authorities and housing organisations such as Shelter and Crisis and decided not to go ahead with the single room rent provision for over 25-year-olds. We will revoke the regulations laid by the previous Government.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which is very welcome. What is the magic about the age of 25? Will it be possible to reduce the hardship being suffered by people under 25 years old?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the situation of those under 25 years old. The previous Government had already introduced a single room rent provision for under-25-year-olds, which requires them to live in shared accommodation. They cannot get housing benefit for anything more than a shared room; it will not even cover a bedsit. That was one of the many measures brought in by the previous Government which we opposed.
I have made an announcement today about one of the measures that was on the table when we arrived in government. The regulations had been laid in the House but had not been implemented. Although the rest of the announcements on benefits will be made around the time of the Budget, we brought forward this announcement because we knew that, due to regulations laid before the House, local authorities were making plans to implement the single room rent for over 25-year-olds.

Mr. Gorrie: Will the Secretary of State consider trying to simplify the housing benefit regulations and making them more humane? I have wrestled with them for many years as a councillor and now as a Member of Parliament, and I know that they are complex and put many people off claiming their rights.

Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. The complexity of the housing benefit system means that people are not able to understand the factors that change their entitlement. There is also clear evidence that the way the system works keeps some people on benefit because they cannot pay their housing costs if they start work. We have already announced that we will review housing benefit as part of wider housing policy.
The previous Government abandoned any attempt to have a housing policy for those on lower incomes: they stood back and let the housing benefit system take the strain. It did—to the tune of £11 billion a year—while investment in housing collapsed. The review will be undertaken cross-departmentally, but in the meantime we need to ensure that the current system is made simpler and easier to understand.

Young People

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the Government's policy for getting young people off benefit and into work. [4347]

Mr. Field: The Government believe that work is preferable to welfare. Shortly, the House will be given details of our plans to offer real opportunities to 250,000 young people who have been unemployed for six months or more.

Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the saddest aspects of the former Government's policy was their failure to give opportunities to young people and that, as a result, between 500,000 and 600,000 young people are now out of work? For the benefit of the Conservatives, will he reiterate his determination to ensure that young people are given opportunities and their life chances are improved?

Mr. Field: I willingly give that commitment to my hon. Friend. I hope that the House will appreciate that, when the plans for moving people from welfare to work are unveiled, we will offer that group of claimants an opportunity that no other Government have ever offered them. Because we regard every individual as important, they will all be given four options. Because we will meet that part of our commitment, the Prime Minister's view that there should be no fifth option of remaining on benefit will also be part of the package.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does the Minister of State agree that the complexity of his welfare-to-work programme


gives scope for wider benefit fraud? Will he confirm that he has asked his officials to consider that problem; that they have advised that there is greater scope; and that the arrangements to prevent that would cost extra money?

Mr. Field: I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and look forward to his using his considerable skills to develop our welfare reform programme.
Given the lead the Social Security Committee took on fraud in the previous Parliament, is he not trying to teach his grandmother to suck eggs?

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will hold discussions with the Home Office on the social security rules governing benefits to asylum seekers. [4350]

Mr. Keith Bradley: As the House is aware, we are committed to a wide-ranging review of social security. Our aim is to encourage independence and reduce poverty. With the Home Office, the Department of Health and other Departments, we will consider all arrangements for asylum seekers to ensure that they are dealt with fairly and promptly.

Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the review is conducted urgently? Asylum seekers and their dependants, who are sometimes young children, should not have to wait long periods without social security subsistence and their asylum applications should be decided promptly. Can Government policy be co-ordinated so that starvation is not used as a weapon against asylum applicants?

Mr. Bradley: I am as anxious as my hon. Friend that the review of the asylum system is undertaken across Departments as swiftly as possible. It is crucial that we speed up the process of determining applications to ensure that the scenario that my hon. Friend raises does not happen. The review is led by the Home Office, which has prime responsibility, but I shall ensure that the departmental review is undertaken as swiftly as possible.

Lone Parents (Hackney)

Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will visit Arcola street social security office to discuss the number of single—parent mothers in Hackney on benefit. [4351]

Ms Harman: I intend to visit many social security offices to talk to claimants and staff and listen to their views. I have already visited offices in Streatham and Brighton and members of my ministerial team are undertaking a continual series of visits to benefit offices. I shall visit the Arcola street office in my hon. Friend's constituency in the near future. We are committed to a package of measures that will help lone mothers to move off benefit and be better off in work in Hackney.

Ms Abbott: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government's package of measures to encourage lone mothers to move from welfare to work has been widely

welcomed—particularly by lone mothers themselves, the majority of whom want to work and, indeed, are anxious to do so. Will she take this opportunity to assure the House that although every encouragement and support will be given to lone mothers to move from welfare to work, single mothers with children of school age will never be forced to go to work on pain of losing their benefit?

Ms Harman: We are not proposing compulsion for lone mothers to take work. As my hon. Friend says, we are backing their desire to have the opportunity to go out to work, to be better off and to have a better life for themselves and their children. There is, however, one element of compulsion in the programme—fathers must pay for their children. In our view, we can tackle child poverty in lone-parent families by ensuring two things—first, that the mother can go out to work and, secondly, that the father pays for his children.

Mr. Leigh: Does the Secretary of State agree that, important as it is to get single parents back to work—whether in Hackney or elsewhere—it is even more important that, when a kid comes out of school at 3.30, his mother is there to take him home, to help him with his homework, to keep him off the streets and to give him love, guidance and affection?

Madam Speaker: Before the Secretary of State replies, I should tell the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that her supplementary question should have followed more closely the substantive question on the Order Paper, as should the question from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I hope that the House will note that, in future, supplementary questions must follow what is on the Order Paper. I will allow the Secretary of State to respond.

Ms Harman: We are backing lone mothers' desire to work. All the evidence shows that lone mothers do not want to depend on benefit—they want a better standard of living for themselves and their children, and they do not want their children to experience only benefit dependency. They want their children to know that the world of work is for them and that they cannot expect to live on benefits.
Many lone mothers want to go back to work, particularly when their youngest child starts school—after all, that is what many married or cohabiting women do. Some married or cohabiting women work during school hours in term time but not at half-term or holidays; others work during school hours and holidays and make arrangements for their children during that time.
It is not for the House to tell mothers to be at the school gates to collect their children. The House should back parents and ensure that the arrangements that they make for their children are satisfactory for them. That is why, as part of the welfare-to-work measures, we are proposing that £150 million be provided by the lottery for after-school clubs. There is enormous demand from both lone and married mothers to ensure that, after school, children can engage in activities for which time cannot


be found during the school day. That will give mothers opportunities to work, but it is not for the House to tell mothers how to do their business.

Madam Speaker: In future, the Secretary of State's responses also should relate to the question, which in this case is about Arcola street social security office and the number of single-parent mothers in Hackney, and nowhere else.

Chilean Pension Scheme

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her assessment of the Chilean national pension scheme as a potential model for reform of the old age pension in the United Kingdom. [4352]

Mr. Denham: The Chilean national pension scheme has serious drawbacks as a model for pension provision in the United Kingdom. Only 60 per cent. of the scheme's members are contributing to it, and administration costs are high.
Our aim is to enable people to avoid poverty and dependence on the state in retirement. We will retain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision, strengthen occupational schemes and develop a framework for stakeholder pensions for those who are not able to join a good quality occupational scheme.

Mr. Wilkinson: In the carefree days when the Minister for Welfare Reform, as he is now, led the Social Security Committee to Chile for interviews with Dr. Piñera and other leading pension pioneers, the Committee saw the benefits of a funded scheme for Chile, which is the model that is increasingly being followed throughout the developing and industrialised world. Why does the Labour party set its face against such reform, which in Chile and elsewhere has proved both an agent for growth and a source of prosperity in old age undreamed of in countries such as ours?

Mr. Denham: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report drafted by the Select Committee on its return from Chile. He will find that my right hon. Friend reached the same conclusion that I have just reported to the House about the failings of the Chilean pension system. It is essential that we are not blind to the defects of pension schemes around the world.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Chilean pension scheme was introduced by Jose Piñera, who was part of the fascist Government of the time, that it was designed to destroy the developing welfare state in Chile and that its whole purpose was to reduce the cost to employers of any kind of national insurance system and make workers' contributions into a private insurance scheme compulsory, which is expensive, inefficient and

ineffective in providing them with a decent benefit? It should have no part whatever in any consideration of welfare state development in this country.

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right, I think, about the timing of those events. As we develop our pensions review over the coming months—we will announce the details shortly—we should judge proposals that are put to us, as our proposals should be judged, by their ability to enable people to achieve security in retirement. That, I suspect, will mean that we need the right balance between state and private provision and between the costs that fall on one generation and on another. As part of that, we will need to forge effective partnerships with the private sector to extend pension provision.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome the Minister to his post. Can he confirm that the pensions review will rule nothing in and nothing out, including the proposal from Dr. Piñera in Chile that we should move towards a funded pension, whether private or occupational? Would it be his view that the Chancellor should make that a priority in the Budget?

Mr. Denham: The details of the pensions review will be announced shortly and will obviously include its terms of reference. It is already a matter of record that we want the process to be open and inclusive; we want to encourage new ideas and innovative thinking while consulting on some of our manifesto commitments, such as an examination of stakeholder pensions and the possibility of a citizenship pension for carers. I hope that the outcome will be the sustainable consensus that this country needs on the future of pensions policy.

Benefit Services

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for improving services to benefit claimants. [4353]

Mr. Field: We are reviewing how we deliver benefits to customers. In any such review, the views of customers will be crucial.

Mr. Hutton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of improving services to benefit claimants would be to ensure access to good quality advice and information? What role would that play in the review of social security that his Department is undertaking?

Mr. Field: The review that we are undertaking will obviously include my hon. Friend's points. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), said earlier how we are seeking to find out why so many older pensioners do not claim the help to which they are entitled. As well as conducting national surveys, we are interested in what is happening at grass roots level. I have followed closely what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) has pioneered in his constituency. We are anxious to learn those lessons and feed them into our review.

Montserrat

Ms Diane Abbott: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is Her Majesty's Government's response to the devastating volcanic eruption on the Caribbean island of Montserrat, which has resulted in serious loss of life, with eight dead, 10 missing presumed dead and a further eight missing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing condolences to those who have lost relatives in this dreadful disaster and in wishing all those who have been injured a speedy recovery.
In view of the seriousness of the eruption last week, my Department established a task force of officials to decide what best could be done to help the Government and people of Montserrat. As a result, we have taken a number of urgent steps. First, four helicopters were mobilised immediately, one of which has a burns treatment capability. I should express the Government's appreciation for the assistance given in the operation by the Dutch and French Governments.
Secondly, because the airport is closed, we have set up a new ferry service, which started operating yesterday, to and from Antigua. Thirdly, a senior official from our emergency aid department is on the island to help co-ordinate our contribution to alleviating the crisis. Fourthly, we are examining the possibility of setting up a helicopter shuttle service to Antigua. In addition to the funds that we had already allocated to Montserrat, a further £6.8 million has been made available for assistance.
My noble Friend Baroness Symons, who had recently paid a routine visit to Montserrat, and I had a meeting and it was agreed that she should visit the island on behalf of the Government, on the clear understanding that her visit would not distract in any way from the rescue work. I spoke to her on the telephone this afternoon and she is meeting the Government of Montserrat to discuss what further help may be necessary.
We and the Government of Montserrat accept responsibility for the both the immediate safety and the long-term future of the island. As hon. Members know, there will be debate on international development in the House tomorrow. If there is anything further to report, we will let the House know then.

Ms Abbott: The Minister will be aware that it is 16 months since the volcano first erupted. Yesterday, I met representatives of the Montserrat community in Great Britain: the Montserrat Aid Committee 89 and the Montserrat Overseas Progressive Alliance. I was also fortunate to meet the director of the health service in Montserrat, Dr. Ronnie Cooper, who was on a flying visit. They are anxious for me to put the following points to the Government.
First, there is an urgent need for housing in Montserrat because of the displacement of people from the southern part of the island caused by the earlier eruptions of the volcano. I am advised that housing is needed for more

than 4,000 people. I put it to the Minister that the deaths that we have heard about this weekend were caused by the lack of housing.
I understand that the southern part of the island, which is the volcano zone, is also the main agricultural area of Montserrat. Although people were evacuated from that area, because there was no housing and sufficient arrangements for resettlement were not made, the small farmers went back to the site of the volcano to continue farming as that was the only way that they felt they could survive. Had there been proper housing and had proper arrangements been made for resettlement, they would not have lost their lives.
There are also health care issues. A school has had to become a temporary hospital and it is totally inadequate—it has outside toilets. The temporary hospital is losing health care personnel every week because of the problems.
The Montserrat community is grateful for what the Government have done, but, in view of the tragic situation this weekend and the loss of life, it asks that urgent attention be given to relocation and housing. Can interim arrangements be made to get the temporary hospital up to scratch and can more attention be given to the people of Montserrat, who are having to come here to flee the volcano?
The Minister will be aware that the people of Montserrat did not want to leave the island. They have rejected the idea of evacuating it wholesale. They are very attached to what is a beautiful island in the Antilles, but they are in desperate straits. Advisers have been sent and money has been set aside, but there has been interminable delay in decision making. Unless action is taken urgently, particularly on housing, health care and sanitation, more lives will be lost unnecessarily in that beautiful and loyal British dependency.

Mr. Foulkes: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her long and continuing interest in Montserrat and the area in general. We recognise the urgent need for housing. Indeed, when the most recent and most devastating eruption took place, my Department, Baroness Symons and I were discussing the long-term need for housing in the north, so that the housing and hospital facilities that are no longer usable in the south can be replaced. Our first priority now, however, is to take account of the current emergency and ensure that people are safe. We will then consider immediately the longer-term need for housing.
We are satisfied that the temporary hospital is sufficient to deal with immediate needs, but we have already started discussions about long-term hospital provision and will be discussing that immediately upon Baroness Symons's return to the United Kingdom tomorrow.
I hope that we will be able to establish the future of the island in the long term. We do not want it to be evacuated. We shall certainly encourage people to be there and will do everything in our power along with the Government of Montserrat. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want us to take over responsibility from the elected Government of Montserrat, even though it is a dependent territory. We are working with them and we want to ensure that, in the long term, the island is viable and that people can continue to live there.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is only eight weeks since this Government took office. We have already had three or four ministerial meetings about


Montserrat. We are dealing with the matter with the urgency that it deserves because there has been a lack of concern for the long-term interests of the people of Montserrat.

Mr. David Faber: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and join him and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in expressing sympathy on behalf of the Opposition to the families of those who lost their lives. I welcome the action that the Government have undertaken in sending HMS Liverpool and the four helicopters that he mentioned and in making extra aid available to try to prevent further loss of life.
Will the hon. Gentleman give the House a commitment today that the West Indies guard ship, currently HMS Liverpool, which is doing such invaluable work in the area, will be maintained in its current state after the Government's defence review?

Mr. Foulkes: I welcome the hon. Member to his new responsibilities and I look forward to jousting with him across the Floor of the House on more party political occasions, and co-operating in every way possible. I also look forward to his participation in the debate tomorrow, when we can have a longer discussion of international development issues.
We are very pleased that HMS Liverpool was able to be deployed so quickly and that the Lynx helicopter on the Liverpool was used very effectively in the search-and-rescue operations. That underlines the importance of the West Indies guard ship. As for the defence review, happily that is a matter for my colleagues, not for me.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for his statement. Many people in my constituency and other inner-London constituencies come from Montserrat and are desperately concerned about their families and friends back home. They want to know that the Government's commitment to Montserrat will continue and that there will not be any cash limit put on the immediate help that is so vital, such as the hospital and housing. Above all, they want to know that people from Montserrat who came to this country after the previous eruption will not be forced to return home, and that all those in Montserrat who feel the need to come here now will be allowed in without any restrictions on their entry or their stay in this country being imposed by the Home Office.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The question about entry to the United Kingdom is, as he says, a matter for the Home Office; my Department and the Foreign Office will be discussing it with our colleagues in the Home Office.
I emphasise the importance of trying to keep Montserrat as a viable island. We hope that there will be no further eruptions, but that cannot be totally assured, so we have an evacuation plan in the event of any serious eruptions. Assuming that there is no serious eruption, we would want to keep Montserrat as a viable entity, which is why we are encouraging people to stay there. We will give them as much assistance as we can and we will work with the Government of Montserrat to try to make that

possible, but if, at the end of the day, they have to seek sanctuary elsewhere, they should be treated as sympathetically as possible.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Liberal Democrat Members would also like to extend their sympathy to the people of Montserrat at this terrible time. Although I appreciate the need of the people to stay on their island, I understand that the habitable area is becoming smaller and smaller and I want to know whether, in the long term, the Government have any plans for geological surveys or volcano surveys—I do not know the scientific name off the top of my head. Are there any plans in the long term to decide whether it is worth trying to persuade people to relocate elsewhere, and to help them to do so if that is necessary?

Mr. Foulkes: I am pleased to say that the British Geological Survey has been providing seismological and volcanological advice to the Government and the people of Montserrat. We will continue to provide that seismological and volcanological advice to the people of Montserrat. Although vulcanology is not an exact science, we hope that there will not be a more serious and more fatal eruption. It is important to remember that this has been a viable island, producing rice for the European Union and acting as a haven for tourists, and we would want it to continue to be viable, if at all possible. We are working with the Government of Montserrat to try to make that possible.
If evacuation has to take place, we will consider the position as sympathetically as possible and do everything we can to make sure that the people of Montserrat are properly dealt with.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Does not this tragedy highlight once more the fact that there is not adequate communication or facilities for communication between the legislative councils and Chief Ministers of small dependencies and this place?
I listened to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Will the Minister advise the House whether at any stage the legislative council or the Chief Minister tried to raise those points with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or his Department? Secondly, will he put in the Library the messages from the Governor, who is responsible for these matters during emergencies, so as to indicate at what stage the gravity of the current situation was flagged up? Those messages are appropriate for scrutiny by Members of Parliament.

Mr. Foulkes: In relation to the period for which I and the Government are responsible, I totally rebut my hon. Friend's suggestion.
I met the Chief Minister of Montserrat only five weeks ago when I was in Toronto at a meeting of the Caribbean development bank. As I said earlier, my noble Friend Baroness Symons visited Montserrat, met the Government and the Opposition and discussed what was necessary in the short and the long term. We were in the process of considering all of the things that we should provide for the Government and the people of Montserrat when, unfortunately, the eruption took place. It could not be


predicted, and I do not think that even my hon. Friend would blame the present Government—or a Conservative Government—for a volcanic eruption.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his remarks about inactivity by the earlier Government, given that that Government paid for the building of a number of new schools and a new general hospital in Montserrat, which were destroyed by the volcano? Can he confirm that Montserrat receives more aid per head of population than any country in the world?
The House would like to know, if not today perhaps in tomorrow's debate, how much money are Her Majesty's Government are prepared to earmark to ensure that Montserrat is viable in future.

Mr. Foulkes: I will certainly try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's final question is answered in tomorrow's debate—if not in the introductory speech, then in the reply for which I am directly responsible.
It is not right to compare dependent territories with other countries. We have a special responsibility for dependent territories as long as they remain in that role, which is why I said that we accept, jointly with the elected Government of Montserrat, our responsibility to the people of Montserrat; and that continues.
No doubt if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will have the opportunity tomorrow to extend his contribution and tell us what the previous Government did. I do not believe, however, that he will be able to say that they acted with the sense of urgency that has been shown in the past eight weeks.

Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be aware that, last year, I saw the devastation in Montserrat from a Lynx helicopter flying from the back of HMS Argyll, the West Indies guard ship on station at the time. In view of the risk to Lynx helicopters because of the nature of the dust from the volcanic explosion, is my hon. Friend satisfied that, in the event of there having to be a major evacuation, there is sufficient seaborne support to bring that about?

Mr. Foulkes: Yes. As well as providing the ferry service, which started yesterday, we have had discussions with the Governments of the other islands in the area, and we are satisfied that there is sufficient seaborne capacity to carry out an evacuation. I can say, however, that we are currently reviewing the evacuation procedures—the second issue of which was produced earlier this year—in the light of recent happenings, to ascertain whether any updating and improvement are necessary.

Hillsborough Disaster

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Hillsborough stadium disaster.
Ninety-six people lost their lives as a result of the Hillsborough disaster, which happened on 15 April 1989. That was more than eight years ago, but no one who saw the news reports on that dreadful Saturday will have forgotten those terrible events. For those who lost loved members of their family, the pain is ever present. Following Hillsborough, Members of the House were united in their determination to do all in their power to prevent anything like that ever happening again.
After the Hillsborough disaster, a number of inquiries and investigations took place. The most thorough and wide-ranging of those was the public inquiry led by the late Lord Taylor. The terms of reference of that inquiry encompassed not only inquiring into the disaster, but making recommendations about crowd control and safety at sports events.
Lord Taylor's inquiry took oral evidence from more than 170 witnesses at public hearings during May and June 1989 and considered many hours of video evidence from different sources. In his interim report in August 1989, Lord Taylor found that the disaster had a number of causes. He did not attribute all the blame to a single cause or person, but in paragraph 278 he made it clear that, in his view,
The main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control".
Lord Taylor made 43 recommendations in his interim report. His final report in January 1990 made a further 76 recommendations. The developments that have taken place since then in safety at football grounds and in the policing of football matches have been based largely on those recommendations. Football in this country has been transformed since the Taylor report. To a large extent, that is due to Lord Taylor's wide-ranging and soundly based conclusions.
The deaths that occurred on 15 April 1989 were also the subject of inquests conducted by the coroner of the western district of South Yorkshire. After examining the evidence, the jury at the coroner's inquest found in March 1991 that the cause of death of those who died at Hillsborough was accidental death. A further investigation was conducted by the West Midlands police, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, to establish whether there were any grounds for criminal proceedings and to consider whether any police officer should be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
That investigation involved the taking of more than 5,000 statements and the scrutiny of all the material that had been examined previously by the Taylor inquiry. After that investigation, the evidence was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who concluded that no person should be subject to criminal proceedings.
The Police Complaints Authority decided that the chief superintendent and the superintendent in charge on the day should face disciplinary charges for neglect of duty. In the event, the chief superintendent retired due to ill health in advance of a ruling by a disciplinary tribunal.


Under police discipline rules, a disciplinary hearing cannot proceed when a police officer retires before the hearing takes place. The Police Complaints Authority decided later that disciplinary proceedings against the superintendent should be withdrawn because the retirement of the chief superintendent meant that what, in effect, was a joint allegation of neglect of duty could not be heard fairly in the absence of the more senior officer.
Hon. Members will be familiar with the unhappiness of the families of those who died regarding the outcome of the inquest. They later applied for judicial review of the coroner's proceedings. In November 1993, the divisional court ruled that none of the matters raised in the judicial review proceedings justified intervention by that court in the verdict of the inquest jury.
The events surrounding the disaster have therefore been subject to investigation on several occasions. However, concerns have remained about whether the full facts have yet emerged. I have met relatives of the Hillsborough victims whose suffering is exacerbated by their belief that there are unresolved issues that should be investigated further.
Representations were made to my predecessor and have been made to me, to the Attorney-General and to the Director of Public Prosecutions. A Granada television programme in December last year dramatised the disaster and raised a number of issues that, in the view of the programme makers, represented new evidence. The programme prompted an Adjournment debate on 17 December 1996, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), and to which my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), replied. I know how seriously my predecessor viewed the matter.
Since that programme, further material has been submitted on behalf of the Hillsborough families support group. Those representations have related in particular to video evidence of the disaster and to medical evidence about the time of death of the victims. My Department, the office of the Attorney-General and the Crown Prosecution Service have considered very carefully all the evidence that has been put forward in recent months. The Director of Public Prosecutions has taken the view that the material so far presented to her would not justify fresh criminal proceedings. The former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), also took the view—again, on the basis of the material presented to him—that any application to the High Court for a new inquest would not have any realistic prospect of succeeding.
None the less, I am acutely conscious that the families of those who died at Hillsborough and many others, including hon Members, are very concerned that unresolved issues remain. I am determined to go as far as I can to ensure that no matter of significance is overlooked and that we do not reach a final conclusion without a full and independent examination of the evidence.
The Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and I have therefore agreed that it is in the public interest to establish an independent scrutiny to ascertain whether there now exists any new evidence relating to the disaster which was not previously available.

We are appointing Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, a senior Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, for that purpose. His full terms of reference are as follows:
To ascertain whether any evidence exists relating to the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium on 15 April 1989 which was not available:

(a) To the Inquiry conducted by the late Lord Taylor; or
(b) To the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General for the purpose of discharging their respective statutory responsibilities; or
(c) To the Chief Officer of South Yorkshire Police in relation to police disciplinary matters;
And in relation to (a) to advise whether any evidence not previously available is of such significance as to justify establishment by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of a further Public Inquiry: and in relation to (b) and (c) to draw to their attention any evidence not previously considered by them which may be relevant to their respective duties; and to advise whether there is any other action which should be taken in the public interest.
I shall place a copy of those terms of reference in the Library.
We have asked Lord Justice Stuart-Smith to examine all the written and other evidence that has been submitted. He will also consider any further material that interested parties wish to submit to him. He will have two tasks. The first is to advise me whether any evidence not previously available is of such significance as to justify a further full public inquiry. His advice to me will be made available to the House, and will be made public. Secondly, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will identify for the Attorney-General, the DPP and the chief constable of South Yorkshire police any evidence that might be relevant to their decisions that has not previously been considered.
I hope that this examination will enable us to establish conclusively whether material evidence about the causes of the Hillsborough disaster has been overlooked. I assure the House that, if it has, I will take whatever action is needed. We owe it to everyone who has been touched by the tragedy, but, above all, to the families of those who died to get to the bottom of the matter once and for all.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and for his personal courtesy in relation to it.
What happened at Hillsborough was a tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions. Thousands of people—young and old alike—went to a football game; 96 did not return and others were injured. Those realities have blighted the lives of thousands of people for ever. There remain hurt and loss from which, in varying degrees, those people may never recover, and we are all affected by their suffering.
We owe it to the families and friends of those who died, to members of the police force and the other emergency services and to all who believe in justice to ensure—in the Home Secretary's words—
that no matter of significance is overlooked and that we do not reach a final conclusion without a full and independent examination of the evidence.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. I welcome his announcement and will support Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in pursuing that important examination.
I have four specific questions to ask the Home Secretary about his statement. First, given the urgency involved—not least for those most affected by those


terrible events; primarily the families, but also the police officers—what timetable does the right hon. Gentleman envisage, and can the House have his assurance that the process will begin immediately?
Secondly, the Home Secretary said that he would make Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's advice to him available to the House and the public. Will he also publish all the evidence considered by the lord justice on which that advice was based?
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman has said that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will consider any further material that interested parties wish to submit. Will such material be examinable in public and will those who may be affected by such material be given the opportunity respond to it before the lord justice reaches any conclusions?
Finally, given the sensitivity of this matter and the Home Secretary's constructive attitude, which I hope he feels that I have reciprocated, will he undertake to agree with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the House can debate this matter further when Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has concluded his investigation?
Positive responses by the right hon. Gentleman to those four questions will help to reassure the families that we are genuinely seeking to help.

Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his courtesy. If it is not wholly inappropriate, I also congratulate him on his appointment as shadow Home Secretary. I am extremely grateful to him for his welcome for these proceedings. This is not and never has been a matter of party controversy. As I have said, I know how seriously my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, took this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman asked four questions, the first of which was on the timetable. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has told me that, subject to a case that he is currently hearing in the Court of Appeal being concluded as soon as possible, he intends to do some work in respect of the new duties before the end of July, and to start his proceedings in September. We hope that the matter will be concluded and that he will be able to produce his report by the end of the year. However, the House will understand that that is a judgment which only Lord Justice Stuart-Smith can make in the light of all the representations that he receives.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether, in addition to publishing the advice that I receive from Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, I will publish all the evidence that is considered by him. My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is provisional. I shall do my best to ensure that that is the case, but there may be good reasons—for example, in respect of criminal or disciplinary proceedings—why such evidence cannot be published at the same time as the advice is published. However, if evidence is to be unpublished, I shall make that clear at the time.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether there can be examination in public and whether the families and others would be able to make representations. The answer to the latter part of the question is yes. As the House would expect, the exact proceedings of the scrutiny are

matters for Lord Justice Stuart-Smith to decide, and he will base his decision on his long experience as a senior member of the judiciary.
The fourth issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised was whether, when the advice is received, I would discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the matter of a debate. Of course I shall do that.

Maria Eagle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I also congratulate Granada Television and Jimmy McGovern, whose efforts have brought this matter back to the attention of the House. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the families who have fought for so long will have the opportunity of legal representation to enable them to present their cases, whether orally or in writing, to the Lord Justice? Will they receive some financial assistance to enable them to do that?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks, and for her welcome for the statement. The costs of those who have to travel to appear before the scrutiny will be met by my Department. My hon. Friend asks about legal representation. That issue has not been raised by me during my discussions with the families. I understand that they already have legal representation. If a further issue arises, I shall, of course, consider it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Home Secretary aware that Liberal Democrat Members welcome this focused re-examination of the evidence, including recently found evidence, on these terrible events, which have been etched into the minds of all the people who saw the television coverage at the time and etched dreadfully into the lives of the people who lost family members; but will he confirm that it is very unlikely—and perhaps impossible—that police discipline proceedings could be reopened as a result of what might be found in the inquiry?
Does he recognise that the public find it difficult to understand how police discipline proceedings can be brought to a halt when retirement on health grounds takes place before the hearing has begun? Given that Lord Taylor's main recommendation was that, although there were many factors, the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control, that will leave questions in the public mind, which will pass beyond the inquiry into what can be done when conclusions are reached.

Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for my statement. He asked me to say that further police discipline proceedings would be very unlikely. That is to anticipate the view that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith may or may not come to, and, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not do that. He also invites me to make general comments on police discipline regulations. There may be an occasion to debate the generality of such regulations, but I do not believe that now is the time.
I say only that the police discipline regulations exist and have been approved from time to time by the House; they are statutory regulations. It is, of course, open to Secretaries of State and to the House to change them in the light of circumstances.

Helen Jackson: I am sure that the Home Secretary realises that the most tragic


trauma of the event was suffered by the families of the Liverpool fans who attended the match, but it was also one of the most traumatic events in their history for the people of the Hillsborough area of Sheffield—the links that they have made and maintain with families in Liverpool bear witness to that. While he considers the evidence that, I believe, he is rightly having another look at, will Lord Justice Stuart-Smith consider in detail the lessons to be learned both for the communities living around big football stadiums and for the policing of football matches?

Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend said: this tragedy went beyond the people directly affected who were supporters of Liverpool football club and traumatised the people living around Hillsborough and all the people in Sheffield and in south Yorkshire as well. We should not forget that, on that day, there were many individual acts of great courage by people from south Yorkshire, by people in the police, fire and ambulance services and by many other ordinary citizens.
My hon. Friend asked me whether wider lessons, including lessons about the policing of football matches, can be considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in his scrutiny. The answer to that, I am afraid, is that we do not anticipate that they can be. The scrutiny will look at new evidence that has come forward since the earlier inquiries, to find out whether that evidence is sufficiently significant to trigger either a new public inquiry, ordered by myself, or action by the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the chief officer of South Yorkshire police. I do not believe that, at any stage since the late Lord Justice Taylor reported, there has been any criticism of his wider recommendations, most of which have been implemented, on the policing of football matches and on crowd control.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that no hon. Member would challenge the judgment that the Home Secretary has come to today, but will he confirm that, in his statement, he said that, on the evidence submitted to her, the Director of Public Prosecutions had concluded that nothing justified fresh criminal investigations? Could he give two undertakings to the House: that, in due course, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will make it clear what new evidence he is considering that was not available to the Director of Public Prosecutions in making that judgment, and why that evidence was not available earlier?

Mr. Straw: I can confirm exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. I said that the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken the view that the material so far presented to her would not justify fresh criminal investigations. I also referred to a judgment made by the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), but I ought to make it clear that, as I understand it—as I am informed—he based that judgment on information other than that which arose following the television programme screened last December.
It is in the nature of asking a senior and highly respected judge of the Court of Appeal to look at all the fresh allegations and the fresh evidence that he may come to a different view from that which the Director of Public Prosecutions has so far come to on the evidence that she

has available. That is not in any sense to imply any criticism of the work of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr. Andrew Miller: On behalf of constituents of mine who were so tragically affected by this event, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the fresh inquiry will bring about some consideration of the way in which the coroner's court conducted its affairs during the inquiries immediately after the deaths? Does it constitute the possibility of fresh evidence—evidence that should have perhaps come to the coroner's court earlier—now becoming more widely available?

Mr. Straw: There has been continuing concern about the way in which inquests generally are conducted. There was a working party report into large-scale disasters and inquests, which recommended significant changes, including a change whereby if there were, God forbid, a disaster of a similar scale and nature in the future, there would be one inquiry similar to that conducted by the late Lord Justice Taylor, which would be the general public inquiry and also take the form of an inquest, so that the relatives would be spared going through the agony caused by two separate inquiries.
The issue of the way in which the first inquest was conducted was the subject of great consideration by the divisional court when there were proceedings for judicial review. It is a matter for Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, but I expect that he will not wish to go over that ground but will instead, as part of his scrutiny, wish to consider with great care the new allegations of evidence not put before the inquest—especially, as the House is well aware, arguments about the time of death which, in the view of the relatives and programme makers, the inquest was not properly able to take into account.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the measured and sensitive way in which he outlined his plans. I take the point about the issue of police discipline in respect of this inquiry, but will he nevertheless undertake to consider a re-examination—not necessarily in the light of these events, but more generally—of the police disciplinary code, which provides that, once an officer has retired, any matters under investigation lapse? Does he agree that that should be reconsidered, and will he undertake to do so?

Mr. Straw: Yes, without reference to this particular case, I accept that many members of the public regard it as odd that, when an officer retires, that is the end of all disciplinary processes. However, one of the things on which I am currently taking advice is the fact that, as I understand it, regulations expect chief officers not to permit the retirement of officers on grounds of ill health where disciplinary proceedings are still pending. There is, therefore, an issue not only of whether disciplinary regulations should be changed, but of whether chief officers of police are properly fulfilling the terms of existing regulations. Both these matters are subjects that I wish to investigate.

Ms Louise Ellman: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, in that it opens up the


possibility of justice for the families whose lives have been so cruelly devastated. Is my right hon. Friend able to assure the House that, while the inevitable legal considerations take place, he will keep in mind the prime consideration of the feelings of the families involved and their belief that they have been denied justice, in that information was not brought forward at the appropriate time?

Mr. Straw: Of course I give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I made the decision to ask Lord Justice Stuart-Smith to conduct further scrutiny because I felt that there was fresh evidence that required proper and independent examination. In reaching that decision, of course I took full account of the profound distress and grief felt by relatives of those who lost their lives. As I said in my statement, those feelings have been compounded by a belief that some aspects of the tragedy—its causes and the culpability of those whose actions may or may not have led to the tragedy—have not been fully examined.

Mr. Damian Green: I am sure that the Home Secretary will be aware that, although the events of that day were particularly traumatic for the people of Liverpool and of Sheffield, they were traumatic also for football fans across the country. He will also be aware that, in the past 12 months, after years in which the incidence of hooliganism at and around football matches was declining, there have been worrying signs that hooliganism is beginning to increase. In the light of his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will not be able to consider the wider issues arising from the Hillsborough tragedy, will he tell us whether, ultimately—should the incident be examined by a public inquiry—a public inquiry will be able to consider the wider issues of crowd control and policing at football matches?

Mr. Straw: For well over the past 10 years, I have taken my children to football matches. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, since implementation of Lord Taylor's recommendations, there has been profound improvement in football fans' behaviour at and around football grounds. The recommendations have led also to significant improvements in policing football matches. Now—as we saw during Euro 96—it is a pleasure to take anyone, including one's children, to football matches. Ten years ago, as I know for certain, it was often a frightening experience. I have received no representations that there need to be changes in the criminal law to deal with crowd control at football matches, although I will consider any such representations that might be made.
I should make it clear that the purpose of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's scrutiny will be to consider the fresh evidence that has become available on the Hillsborough tragedy. I cannot anticipate the full terms of reference of any full public inquiry that I may establish. As I said earlier in answer to my hon. Friends, however, what is clear and beyond peradventure is that no one has criticised Lord Taylor or the way in which he conducted his inquiry, particularly on crowd control at football matches.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: May I again express my condolences to the Hillsborough families?

Those of us from Merseyside know that, to this day, the nerves are still raw and the pain is still tangible when Hillsborough and Leppards lane are mentioned. I should therefore like to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Ms Ellman) that, in the previous inquiry, the feelings of Hillsborough families were shamefully neglected.
May I pursue that point and ask my right hon. Friend whether Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's terms of reference will extend to consideration of past and possible future governmental support for those families? Although very strong support was provided—particularly locally, but also nationally—to those families in their grief, the amount of Government support was pitiful. Will the Lord Justice's terms of reference extend also to examining certain newspapers' disgraceful accusations about the behaviour of fans who were killed, at a time when their families were feeling such pain?

Mr. Straw: I understand entirely the feelings of my hon. Friend, expressed on behalf of his constituents. He asked me whether the terms of reference extend to future Government support to the families. They do not. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I make no apologies for that. The scrutiny by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith is to ascertain whether any evidence exists relating to the disaster at the Hillsborough stadium that was not available to the Taylor inquiry, the inquest, the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of criminal prosecutions or the chief officer of the South Yorkshire police. As has been said, it is a focused scrutiny, led by someone who is senior and respected on the Court of Appeal bench to carry out a specific task that I believe the families have asked us to do.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the statement as a Merseyside Member, at the end of a line that connects most supporters of Liverpool football club. From what I remember—I was in the House at the time—many people said that they had recollections of what happened, but never came forward because they were terrified to give evidence. Can we make an appeal—from the House or through the lord justice—to ordinary people and ask them to stretch their memories once more and, if they were frightened to do so at the time, to come forward now with any new evidence? That is a crucial part of the procedure.

Mr. Straw: If there are any individuals who have material evidence that was not produced at the inquiry conducted by the late Lord Taylor, at the inquest or in relation to the police disciplinary investigation by West Midlands Police, I appeal to them to come forward.
I did not properly answer the second part of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) in relation to allegations by newspapers. Although I shall not go into that, let me make it quite clear that Lord Taylor's report dismissed entirely the allegations made by certain newspapers and clearly came to the view that the principal reason for the disaster was the failure of police control. I hope that remains a matter of reassurance for the families.

Mr. Joe Ashton: I declare an interest as a director of Sheffield Wednesday football club and an eye witness to the event who was no more than 50 yards away


before and after the game. The only other hon. Member who was an eye witness was Eddie Loyden, who has since left the House. Sheffield Wednesday football club has the deepest sympathy with the victims and will be happy to co-operate in any way with the inquiry.
I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. First, will the evidence be given on oath? There is a great interest in that. Secondly, he will recall that the previous inquiry cost some £250,000, excluding compensation. Will the Government pay for the inquiry and refund all the expenses to the parties concerned, including the witnesses and relatives of the victims? Will it be possible to reopen the matter of compensation? Can he give us some information about that?

Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, especially given his position as a director of Sheffield Wednesday football club. He asked whether evidence before the scrutiny by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will be given on oath. We are not planning that that should be the ease. If Lord Justice Stuart-Smith considers that he has inadequate powers to conduct the scrutiny, I shall actively consider any such representations from him, but I do not expect that it will be a problem, given the nature of the scrutiny that we are asking him to undertake in respect of the new evidence.
My hon. Friend asked whether the Government will pay the costs of the inquiry. We shall certainly pay for the cost of the inquiry itself and will refund the travelling and incidental expenses of those who appear before it to make representations. I dealt with the issue of legal representation, which is a much wider issue. So far, I have had no calls for legal aid. That would involve some large decisions to which I cannot commit myself. With respect to my hon. Friend, the issue of compensation for trauma suffered does not arise as a result of this scrutiny.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, a short time before the general election, traumatised policemen were awarded substantial sums because they had witnessed the horrific events? It is well known that many of the Liverpool families of the victims

have not received anything. I take it, from his answer today, that compensation will not be dealt with by the inquiry. Will he give a guarantee that, if the results of the inquiry lean in the direction that many of us hope for, consequential payments could be made to those Liverpool families?

Mr. Straw: The issue of some police officers receiving compensation while some of those who were on the terraces have not is not a matter for this scrutiny—not because it is unimportant, but because it is not directly related to the need for the scrutiny, which is to examine allegations of new material evidence. If that new material evidence is found to exist, it should trigger a new public inquiry or action by the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the chief officer of the police.
I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the payment of compensation to police officers and its unavailability to others who were there. The issue could be raised in the debate that I promised to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in response to the shadow Home Secretary.

Mr. Mike Hall: I represent a number of families who lost loved ones in the Hillsborough disaster and a number of people who were severely injured there. I am sure that the Hillsborough families support group will welcome the independent review of the evidence. Will that review look at the events that took place between 3.15 and 5.30 pm? The issue is very important for many of my constituents. I hope that what my right hon. Friend has announced today will lead to a full public inquiry.

Mr. Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is an unequivocal yes. One of the major issues raised by the Granada Television programme and by the families, support group is the time of death—whether it was 3.15 for all those who died or whether it was later for some. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will examine that critical issue.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With reference to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on Friday, have you had time to complete your consideration of the letter that he sent you about the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Wales and its implications for the rights of Members of this House?
In particular, as the further public utterances of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) are so contradictory that they cannot both be telling the truth, and given the Prime Minister's categorical assurances to the House last Wednesday, is it not paramount for the reputation of the House and the rights of its Members that the Secretary of State for Wales should make a personal statement to the House at the earliest opportunity?

Madam Speaker: I have now seen the letter written to me by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). As the House will understand, I do not divulge details of correspondence between myself and individual Members. I have responded to him today. I have no comment about the particular case that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, as the full facts are not available to me. As a matter of principle, however, I say clearly that freedom of speech is one of the most cherished privileges of parliamentary democracy. I expect Members to exercise that fundamental right at all times to the fullest extent.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate to ask you, about half an hour before the end of British rule in Hong Kong, to express on behalf of the House two thoughts that are probably strongly in the minds of all Members of Parliament—those who have been privileged to go to Hong Kong and those who have not? First, very simply, will you pay tribute to all those who served the Crown and the people of Hong Kong during the past century and a half, including those in the legislative council? Secondly, will you express the hope of this Parliament that the democracy that has been cultivated in Hong Kong will be able to continue from midnight tonight throughout the years ahead?

Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that was not a point of order. But it is a very exceptional day for this country and for Hong Kong, and I appreciate the fact that he has raised the matter with me.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet finished. I am still on my feet.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Manners!

Madam Speaker: Yes, let us have some courtesy and a few manners.
I say simply that I know that the thoughts of the House are with the people of Hong Kong, particularly today. We certainly wish them success and all happiness in the future.
I should like to pay my own personal tribute to the work of the elected legislative council, which I had the pleasure of visiting a couple of years ago. From this democratic institution, which is often known as the mother of Parliaments, our thoughts go to Hong Kong, as do our best wishes for the future.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, over the weekend, we heard accounts of the failure to declare certain trips and other things by hon. Members who—I think—are now members of the Government. Will you guide me and the House on whether the matters will be looked into automatically by the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges, or whether any further action is required in order for him to consider the very grave matters that emerged in the press over the weekend?

Madam Speaker: As far as I am aware, such matters are not automatically referred to the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges. It is for an hon. Member to refer them. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, I think that it would be appropriate if they were submitted to the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges.

Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance in that, during Social Security questions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked the Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), about an estimated £300 million-worth of taxpayers' money that is expected to be involved in the welfare-to-work programme. The right hon. Gentleman side-stepped the issue, although quite clearly from his body language, he knew exactly what my hon. Friend was talking about. On reflection, has the right hon. Gentleman contacted you with a view either to seek to amend the Official Report or to make a statement to make it clear that he knew exactly what my hon. Friend was talking about concerning the costs?

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Member has not done so. Nor is that a point of order for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "A good try."] It was not even a good try.

Scottish Grand Committee

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move,
That—

(1) during the present Parliament, Standing Orders Nos. 99 (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) and 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) shall have effect subject to the following modifications—

(i) in paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 99, for lines 19 to 30 there shall be substituted—
"(3) The days specified for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall be allocated as follows—

(a) four at the disposal of the government;
(b) two at the disposal of the leader of the largest Opposition party in Scotland; and
(c) two at the disposal of the leader of the next largest Opposition party in Scotland:"; and
(ii) in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 100 there shall be substituted for the word "twelve" in line 21 the word "eight".
(2) the Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion to vary the provisions of this Order, and proceedings thereon may be disposed of after the time for opposed business.
I welcome the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to their new Opposition Front-Bench positions. I am not entirely clear at this stage what those positions are, but I am sure that it will become evident over the next few weeks and months. I certainly extend my good wishes for their work in the House.
The motion will enable new arrangements for the Scottish Grand Committee to be put in place. They flow from the fact that there are now no Scottish constituencies represented by members of the official Opposition. The Government have carefully considered what role the Scottish Grand Committee should play in the next year or so prior to the Scottish Parliament coming into being. We have taken into account the views of the other two Opposition parties that have members who represent Scottish constituencies.
The previous Government had their own reasons for reinventing the Scottish Grand Committee as a forum for Scottish issues. Those reasons need not detain us; what matters is what we have inherited. The Scottish Grand Committee can debate matters that relate to Scotland, and all members of the Government can contribute to those debates. Lords Ministers, including the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, can also attend to make statements and answer questions. Second and Third Readings of Scottish Bills can be held in Scottish Grand Committee whenever it makes sense to do so. Scottish questions are now a regular feature of the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: Was any consideration given to limiting the length of speeches at Scottish Grand Committee meetings? My question is prompted by the prospect of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who is a fine man, with a penchant for long speeches, becoming the leader of the Opposition in Scotland.

Mr. McLeish: The Standing Orders governing the debates in the Grand Committee allow the imposition of a time limit on speeches. The Chairmen may have failed so far to take up my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion.
Over the past few years, we have also experienced other changes. The Scottish Grand Committee has met much more frequently, up to 12 times a year, and most sittings have been held in local venues the length and breadth of Scotland, often outwith the central belt. The travelling roadshow, as some of my hon. Friends have described it, may have had its inconveniences for Committee members, but there is no doubt that it has struck a chord with the general public. Far more people turned out to watch the Scottish Grand Committee in action in Aberdeen—fighting their way through a snow storm to do so—than would ever be likely to come to see us at work in the House. There is no doubt that the travelling roadshow has stimulated public interest in the workings of government in Scotland.
This Government are keen to see the Scottish Grand Committee continue to operate as a forum for all Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies to consider matters of relevance to Scotland, whether by means of debate, questions or statements. We intend that the Scottish Grand Committee should operate in the future much as it has done in the past. Precisely because of that, we are opposed to any change to current Standing Orders to add a few token English Conservatives to the Committee. We believe that they would have no locus in the Committee's business.
No doubt there will be opportunities in plenty for official Opposition Members to state their case on constitutional and other matters. That is as it should be.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks about the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and me. In view of the nil representation of Labour Members in Northern Ireland, what representation does the Minister think it would be appropriate for Labour to have on the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that different Standing Orders cover the appointment of additional members to the Scottish and the Northern Ireland Grand Committees. The Standing Orders prepared and implemented by the Opposition, when in government, do not give the Scottish Grand Committee that opportunity.
The Scottish Grand Committee is a forum for all Members from Scottish constituencies to consider issues of relevance to Scotland. The official Opposition have no Members from Scottish constituencies and they therefore have no place on the Scottish Grand Committee. The motion amends current Standing Orders to delete reference to the official Opposition, and to provide instead for Opposition day debates to be divided between the two Opposition parties that have Members for Scottish constituencies.
The motion also reduces the maximum number of sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee annually from 12 to eight. That reflects the reality of the extent to which Scottish business is likely to dominate business here at Westminster in the coming year. The Government's top priority is to establish a Scottish Parliament; in the short term, sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee, valuable though they are, will have to take second place. For the same reason, we expect the bulk of the sittings in the coming Session to be held at Westminster. We recognise,


however, the value of continuing to take the Scottish Grand Committee to venues around Scotland, and that will also be accommodated in the forward programme.
Of the eight sittings in the programme, the Government propose to share those out on the basis of four Government days, two Liberal Democrat days and two SNP days. We expect the full range of business—debates, questions, statements and legislation—to continue to be handled in the Scottish Grand Committee.
The overall shape of the programme will be as follows. On Tuesday 8 July, there will be oral questions and a Liberal Democrat debate on the implications for Scotland of the Budget. Before the summer recess, there will be a debate on a Government subject, which will be held in Scotland. There will be a debate on an SNP subject before Christmas. In the spring, there will be three further Government debates, and two further debates chosen by the Liberal Democrats and the SNP respectively. All three Government debates during that period will be held at Westminster.
To sum up, the Government propose to continue the Scottish Grand Committee in the way developed by the previous Government. We take the view that major change is unnecessary, and in any event inappropriate, given our plans to establish a Scottish Parliament as quickly as possible. The Scottish Grand Committee will continue to be able to call the Government to account on all issues affecting Scotland. It will continue to provide a working forum for parliamentary handling of Scottish business.
From time to time, there will be opportunities to take the Scottish Grand Committee north of the border, so that the people we serve can see how we serve them. The changes set out in the motion are sensible, minimal changes to enable the Scottish Grand Committee to continue to get on with its work. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Minister of State for his good wishes on my appointment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to our Opposition positions. I was a little puzzled by the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend about a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and the Standing Orders being different. The Welsh Grand Committee has met today with no Conservative presence—although the Standing Orders allow for it—because the Government decided in the Committee of Selection to make sure that no Conservative was allowed to take up the place available. I am not sure that his answer held water, although we shall leave that matter for now.
In light of current political affairs in Scotland, the motion might appear innocuous—that is what the Minister said—but it is important that we have this chance to debate it, because there are political implications of a constitutional nature which go far beyond the idea of good housekeeping. I must concede that, given the current state of parliamentary representation in Scotland—and therefore on the Scottish Grand Committee—I would find it hard to insist that the official Opposition should retain the right to nominate motions for the Adjournment when we have no Member entitled to take part in the debates. However, deeper constitutional implications must be considered.
The Scottish Grand Committee is, after all, a Committee of this House and of the United Kingdom Parliament, in which we are the official Opposition. For the moment, that constitutional reality cannot be given practical effect in the Scottish Grand Committee—hence the motion. I would like an assurance from the Government that when we win back parliamentary representation in Scotland at by-elections—as we can confidently expect in the nature of things—the motion will be reviewed and reconsidered to reflect the fact that the official Opposition are represented once more within the Grand Committee.
Without such assurances, today's motion would be a dangerous slide away from the constitutional framework within which this United Kingdom and Parliament have operated. It would undermine the Union and could be seen as the first step on a slippery slope toward the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. McLeish: I am trying to share the optimistic note struck by the right hon. Gentleman about the Conservatives winning by-elections in Scotland. Paragraph 2 of the motion allows for the Standing Orders to be considered and amended, and his point will be taken care of by that provision.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for that assurance, and I take it that it goes further than the "maybe" that is implied. I hope that, if we were to win a by-election, the Minister would accept my argument. He is nodding, for which I am grateful.
I am dismayed to find that the number of sittings of the Grand Committee is to be reduced from 12 to eight. Contradicting the Government's much-vaunted concern for Scottish affairs, we see a continuation of a pattern that seeks to downgrade the consideration of Scottish issues in this House. There is now less time for Scottish questions and fewer Grand Committee debates. What next? With the Government increasingly determined to close down the opportunity to scrutinise Scottish affairs or bring them to account, I fear that we can expect more motions of this kind.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether this is the beginning of the dismantling of the Grand Committee, even before the people of Scotland have had the chance to declare on the question of the future governance of Scotland. What are the Government's intentions for the Grand Committee? When Scotland says no in the referendum, do they intend to review those intentions? Why will they not await the outcome of the referendum before making these moves? Do they cynically believe that downgrading the Scottish Grand Committee will increase the pressure for a yes vote? I can tell them that, if they do, they will be mistaken.
What are the Government's long-term intentions for retaining a strong voice for Scotland within this Parliament to ensure cohesion within the United Kingdom? We are becoming accustomed to the disdain with which the Government treat both Parliament and the spirit of democratic accountability. Even today in another Grand Committee, the voice of democratic opposition to Welsh devolution has been deliberately excluded, contrary to the spirit of the Standing Orders.
The Government may believe that, because of their majority, they can do what they like, but they tamper with constitutional proprieties, at great risk to the careful


balance of democratic accountability that is essential to the working of our democracy. That the voice of dissent is heard and that the structures for hearing it are cherished are central tenets of democracy. Anything that undermines those structures undermines democracy, and the Government should be careful that—in their arrogance—they do not destroy precious and hard-won rights.

Mr. John Maxton: For the right hon. Gentleman—the Minister who took the poll tax legislation through the House—to talk to us about accountability and democracy in Scotland is outrageous.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman may recall that he was leading for the Opposition at that time and he had every opportunity to voice his dissent.

Mr. Maxton: On a guillotine motion.

Mr. Ancram: I am talking about a reduction of opportunities to voice dissent. I remind him that the guillotine came very late in the Bill, after much discussion—largely by the hon. Gentleman.
The motion is, in practice, hard to resist, but nevertheless raises serious concerns. One swallow does not a summer make and the motion is one of a line of swallows, beginning with the deliberate gagging of debate on significant democratic and constitutional issues during consideration of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. It is part of a pattern that is profoundly disturbing to those of us who cherish our democratic principles.
It may be that this gagging of dissent and curtailing of debate—the Government's blustering approach—are part of a strategy to force through constitutional reforms such as devolution in which the Government have lost confidence in their own arguments and proposals. If so, it is even more cynical and even less acceptable.
In conclusion, we will not sit idly by and watch our constitution be so abused or our democratic procedures so callously manipulated. Today's motion is a minor element, but it is a step on a slippery slope which the British people would reject were they to see it. We will make sure that they do see it, for it is their constitution that is challenged.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) presents a somewhat confused perspective on devolution. If, on a Monday, he is in Belfast, he argues passionately for devolution. If, on a Tuesday, he is in Glasgow or Cardiff, he argues against political devolution. If he returns to Belfast, he becomes once again a keen advocate of devolution. He is a little confused on the matter, and as a Member who departed Scotland not long after the introduction of the poll tax, he ought to be circumspect when talking about constitutional change. I believe that the poll tax was the beginning of the end for the Conservatives in Scotland. If he were to accept my argument on proportional representation, he might find that there were Conservative Members in a Scottish Parliament.
I hope that the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee take place mainly in London and Edinburgh—if we are not to meet in Greenock, Wemyss Bay or

Gourock. If we must meet in Inverness—a favourite town of mine, where my wife and I have spent frequent weekends in the spring, summer and autumn—can my hon. Friend the Minister avoid holding such meetings in the depths of winter? Following the last meeting, some of us had enormous difficulty in returning south from that delightful highland town. May I ask also who is to chair these meetings? Such information ought to be given to the House.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the meetings of the Committee in Aberdeen, and said that they were well attended by members of the public. He may recall that I argued at that time in a brief intervention—all my interventions are brief—for a complete boycott of the travelling circus. I was one of the first to call it a travelling circus. Michael Forsyth—the then Secretary of State for Scotland—used the Scottish Grand Committee and its meetings, which were scattered around Scotland, in a ruthless way. When we were in Inverness, he offered us the prospect of a university of the highlands—despite the fact that that had been a matter for debate among people in the north of Scotland for many years in relation to the Open university.
I have no objections to the reduction in the number of meetings or to the two Opposition parties sharing Opposition days; indeed, I look forward to that. I am a little concerned about the speeches that will be made by my hon. Friend, if I may so call him, the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). There should be a time limit on speeches. From the moment the Front-Bench speeches end, the contributions of Back Benchers should be restricted, perhaps to 10 minutes. Why not restrict Front-Bench performances—that is what they are sometimes—too?

Mr. Maxton: To five minutes.

Mr. Godman: No, not to five minutes—to 15 minutes, say. That would make matters more equitable for Back Benchers.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay particular heed to my request that the meetings be shared between London and Edinburgh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman, and relieve the Minister of a responsibility that he does not hold, to say that the chairmanship of the Scottish Grand Committee is a matter for Madam Speaker.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: The Liberal Democrats are happy to support the motion. We have had amicable discussions with the Scottish National party and the Government about the allocation of days, which we believe has been done fairly. We believe in collaborative politics to get things done, but we shall certainly oppose the Government vigorously, as I am sure the SNP will, and call them to account at the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. It is reasonable to have fewer meetings, because there is likely to be a great deal of Scottish business if the Scottish home rule Bill is introduced; obviously, if it is not, we can think again.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was sensible not to push his case for inclusion in the Grand Committee too far. There is a clear distinction between


Scotland, where the three main United Kingdom parties and the SNP contest elections vigorously, and Northern Ireland, where the politics is different and none of the three largest United Kingdom parties has any representation.
It is sensible to support the Government's proposals. If the Conservatives have no members of the Committee, it is foolish to suggest that they should have any say in its agenda; they seem to have accepted that argument. If there is an argument that the Conservatives should be added on, because they were in some way badly treated in the general election, it should be noted that it is my experience and that of other hon. Members who won seats from them that, in addition to getting support for our party and, we hope, for us, we got support from the other two non-Conservative parties because the electors wanted to defeat the Conservative candidate.
That was clearly the predominant feeling: the voters wanted the Conservative out. In my case, I got support from people who normally voted for Labour or for the SNP, and in my constituency those two parties' votes were lower than—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Although I have allowed a certain latitude up to now, I need to draw his attention, and that of the House, to the terms of the motion, which is about the meetings and not about the issue on which he is now speaking.

Mr. Gorrie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to argue why I felt that it was right that the Conservatives should not have the opportunity to dictate what the Committee should debate. I am sorry if I strayed from the point.
If the Conservatives accepted the logic behind proportional representation, they would have a much better case for better treatment. They do not support proportional representation and benefited from the existing electoral system for more than 18 years; they ruled the country with minority support, and now the game has gone against them. If one is losing, one cannot bite off somebody's ear.
The Conservatives should seriously consider supporting proportional representation; that would give them a logical position from which to claim some say in Scotland. At the moment, they have no such position: those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and the Conservatives do not deserve any say in the Scottish Grand Committee; the voters have voted that they should not have a say.

Mr. John Swinney: I am somewhat reluctant to participate in this debate, as one of the people whom the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has in his sights as a by-election possibility. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) has raised the possibility of biting in the boxing ring, I am even more reluctant to speak.
The motion is clearly a technical one, and I am glad that the Government are not proposing any inappropriate exceptions to what we would expect to happen as a result

of the general election outcome on 1 May. We certainly agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that the settlement on Government and Opposition days is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
It is encouraging to know that we will not be subjected in the Scottish Grand Committee to listening to some of the things to which we have had to listen in the House from the Conservatives since 1 May. I went along to the other place to observe part of the debate on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, and the arguments were a little more coherently expressed by the Conservatives there—who included some of my constituents—than by the Conservatives in the House of Commons.
I would not be expected to complain about nothing in a debate such as this, as nothing is ever perfect in the House. The Standing Orders applying to the Scottish Grand Committee say that the largest Opposition party is defined by the number of seats. On proportional representation, there is cross-party consensus among the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Edinburgh, West and me, and we should reflect on the fact that the Scottish National party polled 22.1 per cent. of the vote in Scotland in the general election, compared with 13.1 per cent. for the Liberal Democrats. We should bear that in mind when we settle the roles of the Opposition parties in handling scrutiny of Government business.
I can assure the right hon. Member for Devizes that my party certainly does not intend to sit back and ease off on scrutiny of the Government, their legislative proposals or the matters that they bring before the Scottish Grand Committee. That Committee is a forum in which we have the opportunity to keep a close eye on what the Government propose for Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but does it not therefore disturb him that the number of days on which he will be able to exercise that scrutiny is being diminished from 12 to eight?

Mr. Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) expressed concern about the time available for Scottish questions in the House on a monthly basis. The number of days is limited in comparison with the previous Session, but we accept the Government's argument that the amount of Scottish legislation to be introduced has to be borne in mind in the timetabling of events.
On the subject of timetabling, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde made some remarks on the length of speeches which were no doubt fair. Although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I remember that the previous Secretary of State for Scotland made an extensive speech on one occasion that prevented members of my party from participating in a debate, thus denying the House and the Grand Committee the opportunity to hear all sides of the argument.
This debate is all very well, but the real debate is about how we bring real power, and real scrutiny of Scottish legislation, back to Scotland. In my view, that will be done only by a fully powerful Scottish Parliament deciding all Scotland's affairs. As we work towards that objective, we accept the Government's proposals.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It was of course the Conservatives who made the Scottish Grand Committee what it is today: a forum for questions and debate that brings the Government of both Scotland and the United Kingdom closer to the people of Scotland. It was Ian Lang who introduced a Question Time for Scottish Ministers and opportunities for ministerial statements, expanded the consideration of primary and secondary legislation, and enhanced the scope for general debates, including Adjournment debates at the end of each sitting. It was Michael Forsyth who extended the scope of Question Time to any Minister, including even the Prime Minister, and enabled the Scottish legislative programme to be expanded by taking the Second and Third Readings of non-controversial Bills in Grand Committee.
Most relevant to this debate, it was my noble Friend Lord Younger who made the Committee the exclusive preserve of Scottish Members in 1981. That is what makes the Grand Committee the true heir to the Scottish Parliament that was prorogued in 1707. Then the Scottish Parliament elected 16 peers and 45 Members of Parliament from among its membership to be incorporated into the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster.
We therefore have no dispute with the substance of the proposed changes in Standing Orders for the Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee is the United Kingdom Parliament's Committee of Scots for Scots. It would not be appropriate for the official Opposition to specify subjects for debates, as envisaged in the current Standing Orders, until we have regained representation on the Committee.
That is not to say that we have no concerns. Changes to the Standing Orders specifically to exclude the official Opposition are unnecessary. We would have been happy to give a commitment of forbearance until such time as there were Scottish Conservative Members once again, but this trust-me Government wish to leave nothing to trust. Yet again, we find something of the high-handed rather than the high-minded in the actions of new Labour. We have no choice but to trust them to be true to their word, if and when circumstances change.
What of the future of the Scottish Grand Committee? Each and every one of the changes made under the Conservatives was welcomed. Before the proposals in the motion, the Committee played an increasingly important role, dealing with more legislation than ever before and being able to summon the most powerful in the kingdom to account: the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain excise duty on whisky; the Secretary of State for Defence to justify the threat of Labour's defence review to Scottish regiments and jobs; and even the Prime Minister to give account of his conduct of Government.
To judge from recent Welsh events, Government Back Benchers would be wise to pause before asking such questions. The Government machine was never more geared to the Scottish interest and to the Scottish dimension. That was never to have been the last word on the Committee's future. Michael Forsyth was always interested in developing its powers and function.
Have the Government considered how the Committee's role could be further enhanced, rather than reduced as in the motion? As the governing party also has the majority on the Grand Committee, is there not almost unlimited scope for the delegation of powers to it? Have the

Government considered how all stages of uncontroversial Scottish Bills could effectively be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee? Under such circumstances, would it not be sensible to increase the number of sittings in Scotland so that more matters affecting Scotland could be debated on Scottish soil? Should the Committee have a permanent home in Scotland? A regular meeting place and a regular time in the calendar would enable the rest of Parliament, the press and Scottish public opinion to become increasingly used to it.

Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman's arguments nudge remarkably close to those advanced by the former Member for Eastwood at the Conservative conference at the weekend. He suggested that if the Union was unsustainable—after 1 May, I think that we all agree on that—the arguments for independence were unassailable.

Mr. Jenkin: I am not here to answer for the former Member for Eastwood. I am asking the Government questions, which is the Opposition's job.
I doubt whether the Government have asked the questions that I put forward. They do not want to know. The Minister paid lip service to continuing the work of the Scottish Grand Committee; but, with fewer sitting days and meetings mostly at Westminster, it is clear that the Government want the Scottish Grand Committee to go to sleep as quietly as possible.
What is their political purpose in downgrading the Scottish Grand Committee, now of all times, long before a Scottish Parliament has become a certainty, let alone assumed certain shape or form? What better forum could there be for the discussion of Scotland's future at this time than the Scottish Grand Committee, where the Government even have the comfort of a controlling majority? Is Scottish democracy to be mothballed for the convenience of the Mandelson publicity machine? What sort of preparation is that for Scotland's democratic future?
The truth behind the motion is that the Committee's success is an embarrassment to the advocates of devolution; for if the Grand Committee continues to develop its role, what need for a Scottish Parliament, except to levy a tartan tax and to promote nationalism by stealth? That is what the motion is really about. It surprises me little that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) spoke with such enthusiasm for it.
Whenever people complain—I am coming to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—that the Grand Committee could not have challenged the ultimate authority of Westminster, I wonder whether they realise what they imply. There is no way that a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh can be established by an Act of this Parliament that cannot be subsequently amended by this Parliament. That is the basis of our constitution, based as it is on the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. We had that from the Prime Minister's lips when he explained that ultimate sovereignty rested with him as an English Member.
The Secretary of State knows that that is true, but then I respect him as a Unionist, albeit a misguided one. The case made by some of his more enthusiastic colleagues suggests that they do not know it. There should more meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss the question, not fewer meetings. That is the danger of establishing a Scottish Parliament based on the Claim of Right, instead of enhancing the Committee's powers.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No.
No one should dispute the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine their future, but to choose to express that right through elections to a separate Scottish Parliament is to encourage denial of the very basis of the Union of the Crowns and of the Parliaments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman during his first time as a Front-Bench spokesman, but the thread connecting the motion with his remarks is very thin and I suspect that it is getting ever thinner. I ask him to move back within the terms of the motion.

Mr. Jenkin: The Scottish Grand Committee could serve an ever larger role, expressing the will of the Scottish people but at the heart of the Westminster system. We want Scotland to be at the heart of Britain, not progressively isolated from the mainstream of the discussions that are so vital to Scotland's interests. A Scottish Parliament, unlike the Scottish Grand Committee, could never cross-examine the United Kingdom Prime Minister as an equal.
Until this motion, the Grand Committee represented a form of devolution that could have worked better and better, that raised no West Lothian question, that would not have cost millions of pounds to establish, and did not threaten the Union. The changes to the Standing Orders and the decision to confine its meetings represent the start of its demise. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution should at least come clean on that. The last thing that the Government want at Westminster is a rival pole of attraction to the forthcoming Scottish Parliament, which by comparison will be a constitutional pantomime horse. As comic or tragic as it turns out to be, it will cost Scotland dear.

Mr. McLeish: With permission, I wish to add some concluding remarks.
I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not want the debate to range wide and far, but it has in some respects. Suffice it to say that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) is a clear illustration of a reality that the Conservatives simply fail to grasp.
The Grand Committee was compared to a possible Scottish Parliament. We have heard it described as the real heir to the Parliament that existed before the union of the Parliaments in 1707. To be extraordinarily charitable, that is simply wide of the mark. If the election result on 1 May told us nothing more, it said that the Scots want a measure of constitutional change. There are certainly differences of opinion over what form that should take, but the overriding issue was settled—change had to be on the agenda. Unless and until Conservative Members start to appreciate that, they will make no progress in Scotland or in this House.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is extremely revealing that the hon. Gentleman feels that his devolution proposals have

to satisfy the nationalists on the Opposition Benches, rather than the Unionists. Does that not suggest the direction in which his proposals are taking his country?

Mr. McLeish: What must astonish right hon. and hon. Members is that since 1 May, we have not had a hint of humility, a crumb of contrition or a smattering of any sorrow for the plight that the Conservative party faces in Scotland. That is a matter for the Conservatives on the Opposition Benches. In my own way, I am always trying to be helpful, but no matter the level of help offered, nothing seems to be taken on board.
To return to the Scottish Grand Committee, which is the focus of this debate, the motion is not a downgrading of the Committee. As I said earlier, we are endorsing the fact that the previous Government made progress in taking the Grand Committee to other parts of Scotland. We are continuing to have the meetings.

Mr. Jenkin: Lip service.

Mr. McLeish: We believe that, on the central question of strengthening accountability and democracy in Scotland, we are taking a much bigger step. That is why, through the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, we want to make substantial progress on that aspect of accountability and to strengthen the government of Scotland.
At the start, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asked what would happen if there were a Conservative win in a by-election, however ridiculous that might seem at present. First, the Conservative Member would automatically become a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. Secondly, the Standing Orders could be amended. I use the word "could" because, in a sense, the motion allows that possibility, but what is equally interesting is that Standing Order No. 99—again, devised by the Opposition when they were in government—states:
For the purposes of this order, the 'largest' and 'next largest' opposition parties in Scotland shall be those parties, not being represented in Her Majesty's Government and of which the Leader of the Opposition is not a member".
The Standing Order goes on to confirm that three Members—in this case, Conservative Members would have to be elected, to trigger the review of the situation. It is unhelpful for the Government to be criticised for merely using what has been put in a Standing Order that was written and agreed by the Opposition when in government.

Mr. Ancram: This is a matter of some seriousness. Perhaps we are reading the Standing Order differently. As I read it, the requirement for three Members relates to the largest and next largest Opposition parties, which under the current motion, which is being amended, exclude the Leader of the Opposition's party. As I pointed out earlier, once a member of the official Opposition is back in the Scottish Grand Committee, I hope that the Minister will review the Standing Order to restore the status quo.

Mr. McLeish: Our interpretation is right—it is about three Members being elected. I have given the assurance that, if a Conservative Member is elected, we will review the position. On the other hand, the Standing Orders were


discussed, debated and agreed in the House and they mean that the Conservatives will have to try a little harder than merely having one Conservative Member elected in any forthcoming by-election. It is crucial that the Opposition appreciate that. They are hoist with their own petard.
The right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned our attempt to gag. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, it is important—to be fair, the Opposition have been measured in accepting the reality of 1 May—to point out that the Opposition have no case to argue and we have no case to answer on the decisions that we have made and that are contained in the change in the Standing Order that is before the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also made a point about cohesion, democratic debate and accountability. It becomes a little wearing listening to Opposition Members talking about those when, during their 18 years in government, they often paid lip service to anything that could be described as accountability. My hon. Friends have made some telling points in that regard during our brief debate.
The right hon. Member for Devizes also said that the new, limited-in-number Conservative Opposition are the custodians of everything democratic in the House. Suffice it to say that the House simply will not wear that, and it certainly will not be worn the length and breadth of Scotland.
Pessimism and cynicism are not part of Our agenda for change in Scotland. The changes that we are making to the Standing Orders for the Scottish Grand Committee are purposeful and reasonable in the circumstances and will continue to allow the Committee to undertake the work that it has been doing. My hon. Friends made other points about the future of democratic debate. Apart from on the Conservative Benches, that has been secured in terms of the activities of the Scottish Grand Committee.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), we want to consider weather, seasons and geography when we consider having Scottish Grand Committees in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party can each select

two debates. Where those might be held is very much a matter for them, in discussions with the Government. That is a fair point.
The motion will adjust the Standing Orders that govern how the Scottish Grand Committee operates. The adjustments are required because the official Opposition have no Members representing Scottish constituencies. The adjustments to the Standing Orders will achieve the change. They wipe out the reference to the official Opposition because their Members have been wiped out from Scottish constituencies.
The adjustments will also reduce the total number of sittings from 12 to eight in the light of the expectation that a Bill to establish a Scottish Parliament will dominate Scottish business in the coming year. I look forward to debates in the Grand Committee, in this House and elsewhere on a Scottish Parliament. The key issue is that we are here as the Government to strengthen democratic accountability in Scotland and to ensure that legislation is adequately scrutinised. It would be helpful and more meaningful if the Conservative Opposition would learn a little from 1 May and start to participate constructively in Scotland's future.

Ordered,

That—

(1) during the present Parliament, Standing Orders Nos. 99 (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) and 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) shall have effect subject to the following modifications—

(i) in paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 99, for lines 19 to 30 there shall be substituted—
"(3) The days specified for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall be allocated as follows—

(a) four at the disposal of the government;
(b) two at the disposal of the leader of the largest Opposition party in Scotland; and
(c) two at the disposal of the leader of the next largest Opposition party in Scotland:"; and
(ii) in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 100 there shall be substituted for the word "twelve" in line 21 the word "eight".
(2) the Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion to vary the provisions of this Order, and proceedings thereon may be disposed of after the time for opposed business.

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1997, Which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
The order will extend for a further 12 months the so-called interim period during which the government of Northern Ireland is carried out under "the direction and control" of the Secretary of State. So far, that temporary arrangement has lasted for 23 years. I regard that as a sorry state of affairs.
The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve political structures that are more accountable to them and more responsive to their needs. The Government are determined to put power back into the hands of the people throughout the United Kingdom. Our approach is based on principles of openness and local accountability and those hold true in Northern Ireland too.
Quite apart from those general arguments, bringing power closer to people in Northern Ireland could play a significant part in healing divisions and encouraging people to work together. It is widely acknowledged that any new arrangements for Northern Ireland must involve power and responsibility sharing among representatives of all main sections of the community there. Devolution of power on that basis could be an important symbol of partnership and working together, giving positive leadership in the interests of all in Northern Ireland.
It has long been recognised that any successful settlement must address the totality of relationships within these islands. We want to move to a situation in which real power is exercised in a co-operative spirit by and for the people of Northern Ireland; a positive and constructive relationship between the two parts of the island of Ireland produces mutual benefit; a consensus on constitutional issues settles old fears and further enables Britain and Ireland to work closely together; and both main parts of the community in Northern Ireland can express their different national identities without appearing to threaten the other.
Such a political settlement is possible, and I am determined to facilitate progress in that direction. That will be our goal in the months ahead. Is it possible that, by this time next year, I shall be able to tell the House, with confidence, that the interim period which has lasted since 1974 is coming to an end? I look to hon. Members from Northern Ireland for encouragement, but, like them, I know that achieving that goal will be far from easy.
At least the machinery for making progress is in place. The multi-party negotiations have a further year to run. Nine of the 10 elected parties are there. Independent chairmen have been appointed to facilitate relevant aspects of the negotiation and have won the respect and confidence of both Governments and of the Northern Ireland parties. We are grateful to those independent chairmen. Rules of procedure have also been drawn up and agreed. The time has now come to use that machinery intensively to make real progress over the coming months.
The Government are determined to do all that we can to aid that progress. Obviously, we want the talks to take place in a peaceful atmosphere. We want Sinn Fein to be there, representing its electorate, but, as my right hon. Friend the

Prime Minister has made clear, a political settlement of the kind that I have described is an urgent necessity—whether or not Sinn Fein is involved in negotiating it. As we have said so many times in the past couple of weeks, the ball is in Sinn Fein's court. We have been straight with Sinn Fein, as the published aide memoire shows, but the republican movement now has to make up its mind. The whole world knows that. If its representatives cannot rise to the challenges of democracy, they can have no place in shaping the future arrangements for Northern Ireland.
The issue now under consideration in the talks is the difficult and sensitive one of decommissioning illegal arms. It is a complex and emotive subject; however, it has been under detailed discussion since mid-October last year and, in my view, the time has come to bring the issue to a determination and move on. I told the talks on 3 June that we wanted to see the matter resolved to the satisfaction of the participants "within weeks". The British and Irish Governments have, in an effort to facilitate agreement, tabled a joint paper setting out a series of "possible conclusions".
Agreement would enable us to set a firm date for the launch of substantive political negotiations—a date on which the settlement train could definitely leave the station, whether or not Sinn Fein was on board. I shall not now go into the detail of the paper as it remains under consideration in the talks, but I can say that the two Governments' proposals are entirely consistent with Senator Mitchell's report and its "compromise approach" under which
some decommissioning would take place during the negotiations, rather than before or after".
The two Governments, in the joint paper, commit themselves to working to achieve progress on decommissioning alongside progress in the substantive political negotiations.
Positive movement in the talks towards a political settlement would help us make progress in other highly contentious area, such as the parades. In the run-up to this year's marching season, I have been trying to make progress, talking with representatives of both the marching orders and the residents' associations. I and my officials have been trying to identify areas of common ground and explore the extent to which local accommodation might be reached—the only approach whereby we can ensure that violence will not be part of the scene in the next two weeks.
I cannot say yet whether those efforts will have a successful outcome, and we are continuing this week to try to achieve further progress, but I can assure the House that we shall continue to do all that we can to avoid a repetition of last year's appalling events. However, the task of everyone involved in working for a peaceful resolution of the parades issue would be made significantly easier if it were being discussed in a climate of peace and political stability.
Before inviting hon. Members to support the order, I shall set out briefly some of the ways in which we intend to discharge our responsibilities for Northern Ireland. On public spending, all Government Departments will live within the totals announced for this year and the plans published for 1998–99. That provides an opportunity to conduct a root-and-branch review of public expenditure to ensure that it aligns with the Government's objectives and secures value for money. That comprehensive spending


review will apply to public expenditure in Northern Ireland. We shall examine all areas of spending to ensure that resources line up with our priorities.

Mr. John D. Taylor: When will hon. Members have an opportunity to discuss public expenditure in Northern Ireland?

Marjorie Mowlam: Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland will have an opportunity to discuss that matter in the months ahead, because we have made an effort this year to ensure that negotiations and priority setting are not only questions for Ministers. We shall go out to consultation with all the political parties.

Mr. Taylor: So that I fully understand that reply, does that mean that, as in the case of the Welsh Grand Committee which is meeting today in Wales, the Northern Ireland Grand Committee will have an opportunity to discuss public expenditure? The previous Government never gave us the opportunity to discuss the issue in any proper forum.

Marjorie Mowlam: Let me elaborate on my previous answer and then I shall answer that question directly.
What the approach that we are adopting will achieve is that Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland will be able to have an input, before the decision is taken, in creating the whole picture of how the spending review will take place. That is a useful and valuable input for all Northern Ireland Members.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question relating to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, as he is well aware, days before Parliament was dissolved for the election, the previous Government introduced several changes to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. We are still reviewing those changes and I look forward to discussing and reviewing them—not in a negative way, so hon. Members need not panic, but in terms of what they cover. As there were changes to the Scottish and the Welsh Grand Committees, I have been looking at how arrangements differ across the Union. The issue is still on the table and we look forward to discussing it with the Northern Ireland parties in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will probably be aware of current press speculation that there will be a shift of funds in the Department of Education that will gravely affect those schools in Northern Ireland that are the most deprived. That would seem to go contrary to the PAFT—policy appraisal and fair treatment—approach. Will she take this opportunity to deny that?

Marjorie Mowlam: There are no plans to shift money from deprived schools to other schools in Northern Ireland. The PAFT criteria are there and we have repeatedly said that we support them. All we have done is shift £4 million from within budget to ensure we get class sizes to less than 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds and to help many schools avoid sacking teachers. As a result of the cuts introduced by the Tories over the past two years, many schools—both those in deprived areas and others—are hurting badly, so that money has been reallocated. However, there are no plans to deprive deprived schools more than others. We are looking at what we can do to help all schools in Northern Ireland, because they are facing

severe financial stringency as a result of the plans put in place by the Tories last year, which are coming forward into this year.
It may help to answer those questions about education if I mention some proposals that we are trying to move into policy as quickly as possible to tackle unemployment and get young school leavers off benefit and into work.
I am pleased to say that figures for unemployment in Northern Ireland are decreasing and that unemployment is at one of its lowest levels for almost 17 years, but we are having trouble getting into work young people who have been unemployed for more than six months. That is an appalling waste of the young people's talents and skills, which they have never been able to develop. We look forward very much to the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who will announce this week a comprehensive welfare-to-work strategy, funded from the one-off windfall levy on the privatised utilities. We want to use that in Northern Ireland to break down barriers to the long-term unemployed.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Have we an assurance that, in the Budget, a designated proportion of the windfall tax, if it comes through, will go specifically to Northern Ireland—or must we continue to look for crumbs?

Marjorie Mowlam: We certainly will not be looking for crumbs. I guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that we shall get nothing less than our fair share—our fair proportion—of the windfall tax. We want to ensure that it is used effectively on training schemes so that young people get a good training.
I know that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have lobbied in the past in support of training schemes that were being closed down. We shall consider those carefully, but we want to be sure of the quality and standards of training schemes that operate in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that answer and encourage the Secretary of State to go down that road, so that we are training not just to keep people off the streets, but to prepare them for jobs that are needed in this modern age—not for some of the things that we have trained people for in the past.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I am sure that he will agree that the one way to get young people into work, once we have trained them, is to ensure that the investment that comes to Northern Ireland stays there. An unequivocal IRA ceasefire would be the best way to achieve that, because that would give us the stability to allow peace to develop and jobs to stay and survive.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I wish the Secretary of State well in her task, because, when the Northern Ireland Act 1974 was introduced, she was just taking over the job that I had done in another life.
During the short period of the most recent ceasefire, the increase that took place in Northern Ireland's tourism industry, with tourists coming from outside Northern Ireland, was an especially encouraging source of employment; it is, and will be, denied to the Northern Ireland until, at long last, a lasting ceasefire can be established.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He is right: despite the hard work of the


Northern Ireland tourist board, which has been exceptional as usual, the tourist figures are reducing, solely as a result of the instability and the fact that the worrying time of the parades is coming up. People will not visit Northern Ireland at that time. We call on all parties involved to do all that they can to reach an accommodation, because if they do not, they harm the very culture and country that they are trying to protect. We must work together to surmount that obstacle.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I wonder whether, when the Secretary of State talks about parades, she will recognise the fact that people will fail to come to Northern Ireland, not because of parades, but because they fear the violence that is threatened by Sinn Fein-IRA in the selected cases where they hope to create trouble and encourage the actions that the IRA showed on the streets of Lurgan a couple of weeks ago. Is it not the case that, by pandering to, and believing in, the possibility that the IRA will declare a ceasefire, against all the evidence that is available to the Secretary of State, we encourage that unease to continue?

Marjorie Mowlam: I assure the hon. Gentleman that no Labour Member panders to any group in relation to the position in Northern Ireland. I agree that the situation in Lurgan and the violence that was evidenced by the shooting of two policemen in the back of the neck are exactly the situations that give Northern Ireland a bad name. I agree that the violence arising from the present circumstances related to the parades causes the problem.
However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, until we answer the fundamental difficulty of two competing rights, the violence win not go away? People have a right to march, which I fully acknowledge is a fundamental right to which they are entitled. Equally, people have a fundamental right to live without fear or intimidation. The contradiction between the two, and the way in which we accommodate the two, is the question that we must answer.
All that we have at the moment, with those competing rights, is a growth in fear and tension on all sides. As the hon. Gentleman knows better than most hon. Members, that fear is very obvious now; that is what we must deal with in relation to this problem.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Norman A. Godman: rose—

Marjorie Mowlam: I give way to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).

Mr. Maginnis: Insofar as the Secretary of State poses me the question, I must argue that, as long as we deal with the parades issue on a case-by-case basis, we leave ourselves hostage to fortune and to the wiles of Sinn Fein-IRA. Is it not time that the Government established a proper definition of the fundamental right to assemble and parade, and codes of behaviour against which judgments might be made? On such a basis, it would be much more difficult for those who wish to disrupt to do so.

Marjorie Mowlam: I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but will check Hansard to be sure, because I

hear him say that, if there are a set of guidelines and a code of practice which include the cultures of both communities, those are what we must find an accommodation between.
However, I say to the hon. Gentleman, only by an accommodation shall we avoid violence, because, if a local agreement is not reached, inevitably one side will feel that it has surrendered, lost its respect and had its culture denied and that its members have been treated as second-class citizens. That will lead to situations such as those that arose last year, depending on which group perceives itself as the "loser" or the "winner". That is why only by accommodation and common sense shall we avoid situations such as those that we have witnessed.
I will take one more intervention.

Mr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very alert on Northern Ireland.
On tourism, may I say that I hope that a couple of hundred tourists arrived in Ballycastle today on the passenger ferry vessel which left Campbeltown this morning, waved off by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Regarding the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), is the Secretary of State in a position to say when the Government will publish their response to the report by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland on under-achievement in schools in Northern Ireland? The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), promised such a response; is the Secretary of State in a position to say when the House can catch sight of it?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and I, too, welcome the fact that the ferry left from Campbeltown this morning. It was waved off by the Secretary of State for Scotland; it was welcomed by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who happens to be a Scot, but I am sure that his thoughts were with Northern Ireland when it arrived.
I do not know when my colleague will give a response to the report by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland on under-achievement, but we are studying the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights report, which is a very full report, and I shall do all that I can to get a response to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland so that the two points are answered simultaneously.
We believe that social and environmental changes, which we discussed during the exchange of questions, are crucial to creating a peaceful environment in Northern Ireland. Settlement and economic growth and training are two sides of the same coin. Further violence and disturbance can only put at risk all the economic progress that people have worked so hard to achieve. Civil unrest would jeopardise the future prosperity that people in Northern Ireland rightly expect.
In the coming year, the Government will do all that we can to combat terrorism and the threat of terrorism; to help build confidence in areas such as policing; to tackle the sources of tension between the communities; and to bring about a fair political settlement. If we are to succeed, we shall need the positive support of all political and community leaders in Northern Ireland—particularly in the days and weeks immediately ahead.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge, and to welcome, the new shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I thank him and his colleagues for the support that they have given us during their short time in office. Fur the time being, the structure of direct rule must remain in place. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I thank the Secretary of State for her kind remarks. I am pleased to be at the Dispatch Box, having spent a little more than five years doing good by stealth in the Government Whips Office. I am glad that there is solidarity among Whips on this occasion, and that the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household is in his place to ensure that his predecessor behaves properly. I am delighted to be directly involved with life in the Province again, having spent three and a half happy years in the late 1980s as the parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
On behalf of the official Opposition, I confirm that we entirely support the draft interim period extension order. Like the Secretary of State, I acknowledge that, although direct rule was intended to be temporary, it has now had to be renewed 22 times. Few observers dispute the claim that it has provided Northern Ireland with fair, efficient and effective government. Yet the fundamental weaknesses of the current arrangements are clear and acknowledged.
Since 1972, no Minister who has served in the Northern Ireland Office has represented a Northern Ireland constituency. That has effectively excluded all locally elected representatives—particularly Members of Parliament—from being responsible for decisions about local services and priorities such as education, health and industrial development. It means that Northern Ireland suffers from a democratic deficit: the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues exercise powers that, anywhere else in the United Kingdom, would be carried out at a local level.
The situation is compounded by the fact that the Province's 26 district councils have limited responsibilities compared with equivalent bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us be honest: most local government functions remain the responsibility of Departments in the Northern Ireland Office. As a result, and within the context of a comprehensive political settlement, we must be determined to re-establish political institutions in Northern Ireland that not only allow local politicians to exercise greater powers and responsibilities, but enable both sides of the community to work together. To this end, we should be prepared to consider any proposals that pass two key tests: they must be workable and, crucially, command widespread acceptance throughout both parts of the community.
In the meantime, improvements to direct rule are essential. Although I hope that the overriding objective on both sides of the House is to bring about a comprehensive political settlement, that in no way precludes improving the way in which Northern Ireland is governed under direct rule. I believe that my colleagues in the last Parliament made progress in several significant areas, not least in setting up the Northern Ireland Select and Grand Committees. I hope that the Secretary of State or the

Minister of State—who I assume will wind up the debate—will provide an assurance that those Committees will be re-established shortly.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacKay: I have always failed to see—I know that my view is shared by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), whom I heard supporting me—why Wales and Scotland should be treated differently from Northern Ireland. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland, through their democratically elected representatives in this place, should be consulted about policy decisions. They should have the right to question and cross-examine Ministers in the same manner as our Welsh and Scottish colleagues. The Northern Ireland Office should be more accountable to the House. The best way to achieve greater accountability is through the Grand Committee, and I look forward to its establishment shortly. I hope that it will be vigorous in cross-examining the right hon. Lady and her ministerial colleagues.
I reiterate the comments about the peace process made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the Dispatch Box last week. The bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland is very much in place, because we believe that the new Government's proposals are a logical extension of the process initiated by the Prime Minister in the last Administration. However, I wish to emphasise a few points and seek some reassurances.
It is essential that there be parallel decommissioning and that the talks process should proceed at roughly the same pace as decommissioning. It concerns many people that it will take some time to establish the decommissioning mechanism, whereas, if a ceasefire is achieved—we all hope and pray that it is—the talks will commence in September. We believe that the talks process must be halted regularly so that the parties and the two Governments involved in the talks will be able to assess progress not only with the talks but with decommissioning. If need be, any party could withdraw from the talks because decommissioning was not proceeding. It seems essential that those activities occur in parallel.
I echo the words of the Secretary of State and of the Prime Minister in saying that this must be the final chance for Sinn Fein-IRA. I respectfully suggest that the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend must mean it: it really must be Sinn Fein-IRA's last chance. I assure the right hon. Lady that she will have the support of the whole House if the talks process proceeds without Sinn Fein-IRA. They must lay down their arms and start a genuine, deep and lasting ceasefire.
We wish the Secretary of State well in the very difficult weeks ahead—not only in dealing with the marching season but, I hope, in securing a ceasefire and beginning the talks. We shall speak much more about those subjects at the Dispatch Box in future. Meanwhile, on behalf of my colleagues, I wish the right hon. Lady every possible success.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her efforts in the past few weeks to try to reach an accommodation on the question of marches in Drumcree and elsewhere.


She is—to use the cliche—between a rock and a hard place: she faces some very difficult decisions. I do not accept—as has been argued in some places—that the matter may be left to the police. It is a highly political and highly sensitive issue. At present, we are seeing the re-emergence in Northern Ireland of the same tactics as were applied in 1968, 1969 and 1970: one group says that it will have a march, so another group says that it will stage a counter-march, which places the police in a difficult position. My right hon. Friend faces a harsh problem. I wish her well in her attempts to accommodate those who will not sit down together.
I hope that, whatever decision is made, there will be no acceptance of the view that the right to march and the right not to suffer or fear intimidation are equal. All people have the right to feel safe and secure in their own homes, communities and societies. That has been recognised in, for instance, the passage of trade union law limiting picket numbers so that people are not intimidated. The right to picket is important and proper, as is the right to march; but the greatest right that a person can have is the right to feel secure rather than threatened. Both principles are important, but the right to safety is more important.
I also hope that, following the making of a decision, a bone will not be thrown to whichever side feels aggrieved by that decision, whatever it may be. It has been suggested, for example, that if it is decided to proceed with the march, the quid pro quo will be that the streets are kept clear, the ports and the airport are still in operation and people can use the roads in safety. That is not a quid pro quo; people should have those basic rights in any event.
It has been argued in some quarters that it will be decided that the march should proceed because that will place less of a strain on the security forces and it will be possible to contain rioting in nationalist areas. Such a decision would, however, be bad and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not thinking in those terms. It has also been suggested that the quid pro quo for allowing the march will be the announcement of a judicial inquiry to re-examine the evidence surrounding the events of Bloody Sunday. I hope that that will not happen either.
In connection with maintaining security on the streets, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Government intend to move extra troops into Northern Ireland in the next fortnight?
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are to be congratulated on injecting a touch of urgency into the protracted talks process. I understand that we now have a timetable. Sinn Fein is to enter the talks at the end of July, matters that are holding up the agenda at present must be wrapped up in September—issues relating to decommissioning—and, following the discussion of substantive agenda items, the process must end in May.
I think that the two Governments have gone as far as they could have to ease the way for Sinn Fein to enter the talks and that the ball is now in Sinn Fein's court. I did not accept that decommissioning should be a prior condition—I still think that that is a load of rubbish—but both Governments were in a difficult position. It was

certainly difficult for Her Majesty's Government—then the Opposition—to retreat from their stance, having adopted it. I believe, however, that they have arrived at an arrangement that will enable Sinn Fein to enter the talks feeling reasonably certain that it will not be ambushed.
Let us consider the worries that Sinn Fein had and the conditions that it wanted. It now has a fixed date on which to enter the talks, which it did not have under the last Administration. It has a timetable within which to finish the talks, which it demanded. It can feel reasonably certain that no further obstacles will be placed in its way—although I did wonder what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was on about in Balmoral when he suggested the condition, almost a precedent, that the Government of the Republic should give up articles 2 and 3 of their constitution, with no quid pro quo.
I consider the decommissioning proposals and the document produced by the two Governments very sensible. I think that they can meet the concerns of both Sinn Fein and the Unionist people. I do not, however, agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay)—whom I congratulate on his appointment; I remember his being an assiduous parliamentary private secretary in Northern Ireland—that political progress must always be measured against decommissioning. That is what the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, but I do not think that it is in the spirit of the demand for some decommissioning during the talks. No timetable was laid down, and no grade specified against which events should be measured as they happened.
Sinn Fein now has an opportunity to accept the offer that has been made to it and to enter the talks. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will answer some questions when he replies. What will happen if, when Sinn Fein has entered the talks at the plenary in July—subject to an unequivocal undertaking to establish a proper ceasefire and so on—the Ulster Unionists still have not agreed on the decommissioning proposals? As yet, they have not accepted them completely. If Sinn Fein, which is worried about that issue, has not entered the talks by July and there has been no ceasefire, will it be allowed to join at a later date? What if Sinn Fein joins in good faith and there is a Unionist walk-out? What will happen to the talks then? Will a settlement be made without the Unionists?
In setting out his timetable, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the outlines for the settlement were there for all to see. Those outlines have been there for 20 years or more; the problem, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, lies in the detail. The devil is for ever in the detail. What if no agreement has been reached by May, when my right hon. Friend thinks that everything should be wrapped up and if there appears to be no possibility of the talks continuing?
What if we experience the same protracted process that we experienced during the Brooke and Mayhew talks? Will the triple lock still apply, or will my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—hopefully with the Irish Government, but perhaps alone—decide what settlement is to be imposed? Those are not hypothetical questions.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
The Government must have examined and thought about all those possibilities because they are in the agenda and the timetable. Parties should know what is likely to happen if some events work out.

Mr. Taylor: I was getting alarmed, because the hon. Gentleman spoke about imposing solutions. Will he confirm that he supports and accepts the principle of consent by the people of Northern Ireland for any solution?

Mr. McNamara: I am asking what will happen if Northern Ireland representatives cannot come to an agreement. I understand that the Unionists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Basically, they are quite happy about that. That being the case, what will be the situation? The Government cannot sit down and twiddle their thumbs. As the Secretary of State said, they have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland to try to get the best deal for them. Presumably that was the policy that was outlined in the framework document, the Downing street declaration and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. One would like to see those principles contained in any system that emerges.
What happens if there is not the agreement that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are looking for at the end of July and there is an adjournment without agreement on the decommissioning paper? Is that the end? Will it be wrapped up then? Those are key questions for the Secretary of State. One of the difficulties of establishing a timetable is that, if it slips, it is said that the Government are weak. If it is adhered to and the Government act rather abruptly, they are told that they are obdurate and lacking in tact and diplomacy; it is said, "If things had been allowed to go on for a little longer, we might have got somewhere."
I readily understand why the Prime Minister thinks that matters have dragged on for far too long. I also believe that, but while I accept the basis and the nature of a timetable—for which there has been real need over the years—I hope that it will not be so rigid that every little date has to be met immediately because that could prevent what I hope will be achieved; peace and a sensible settlement within the island of Ireland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. As the Chair is now aware that more hon. Members are hoping to speak than was hitherto apparent, and as the time of the debate is limited, may I appeal for brief speeches?

Mr. David Trimble: I apologise for my late arrival in the Chamber. It was caused by transport difficulties on the way over. I shall try to keep within the terms that you have mentioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall eschew the temptation to pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke with his characteristic disregard for democracy. It is a pity that the House has had to endure—

Mr. McNamara: On a gerrymandered basis.

Mr. Trimble: I shall ignore that sedentary comment and treat it with the contempt that it deserves. The hon.

Gentleman spoke about some of the proposals for the disarmament of terrorist organisations. I shall not pursue that matter in detail because it will be discussed in another place in some detail tomorrow. I wish to underline some points that are in the paper that was tabled by the British Government and, I understand, the Irish Government last week. I refer in particular to the opening sentence in that paper, which states:
The two Governments are resolutely committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.
A later paragraph states that this will involve
adequate mechanisms to ensure that the modalities of decommissioning envisaged in the report"—
the Mitchell report—
can be implemented as needed and that no delay or obstacle is caused by any lack of Government preparation or provision in this respect.
I trust that, over the next few weeks, the Secretary of State will be able to assure those involved in the talks that that commitment to ensuring that there is no delay or obstacle to the disarming of terrorist organisations will be implemented in fact. That is crucial to the attitude of my party and others to the Government's proposals. If there are to be substantive negotiations, there must be substantive disarmament in parallel; otherwise, the necessary confidence for the process will not be created or sustained.
We are debating the renewal of what is called direct rule. It is atrocious that only 90 minutes are available to consider the imposition for yet another year on part of the United Kingdom an utterly sub-standard system of government, legislation and administration which continues to involve the United Kingdom in a breach of its obligations under international law. It is intolerable that what was originally temporary has continued for 25 years.
Over the last year—indeed, with the arrival of this Government and Parliament—the arrangements for administration and legislation for Northern Ireland and scrutiny of the Government on those matters have deteriorated further. They deteriorated with the implementation of the so-called Jopling reforms, which mean that Northern Ireland legislation—hitherto considered on the Floor of the House for a few hours, but at least considered in the House—now generally goes upstairs where, usually, only one or two Northern Ireland Members are able to debate it. That legislation is enacted not only without the normal parliamentary procedures but with most Northern Ireland Members excluded from the debate on it.
The effect of the Jopling reforms on Northern Ireland legislation is quite unacceptable. Added to that in this Parliament is the significant reduction of the time for Northern Ireland questions, which provide one of the few opportunities for Northern Ireland Members to hold the Administration to account. At the most recent Northern Ireland questions, there was the farce of only four or, if one is generous in enumeration, six questions being answered. That is quite unacceptable, and action must be taken, if not to end direct rule, at least to ensure adequate opportunities for proper scrutiny of legislation and for the Administration to be held to account.
The Government claim that they are committed to open government and to transparency in government. It is time that those commitments were implemented. I was most disturbed to note, when my right hon. Friend the Member


for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) intervened to query when the Northern Ireland Grand Committee would be running, that there was no clear answer by the Secretary of State. I trust that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will make it clear that the Government are not deliberately dragging their feet. The Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees are up and running and there is no excuse for continued prevarication on this issue.

Mr. Maginnis: My hon. Friend speaks about accountability and openness in government. We in the party who have to make judgments have, of course, seen the aide-memoire that the Government have provided to Sinn Fein-IRA to enable them to enter the talks process. We have not heard whether there has been any response from Sinn Fein-IRA. How they respond may be a matter of confidence between them and the Government, but the Government have at least a right to tell us all exactly what is going on between them and Sinn Fein-IRA.
After the murder of two policemen in Lurgan, it was said that contacts with Sinn Fein-IRA would cease, but I have reason to believe that contacts have continued. I do not intend to make a judgment on who initiated those contacts, but it would be interesting if the Secretary of State would let us know who is in contact with Sinn Fein-IRA and the mode of contact that has taken place.

Marjorie Mowlam: rose—

Mr. Trimble: I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State so that she may respond.

Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to clarify the point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that, after the killings in Lurgan, we would not have relationships between our officials and Sinn Fein in relation to the peace process. That has not changed. We have not made any approach. On the second point, so that I am clear about this—I believe in being honest and open—Sinn Fein has telephoned twice the officials that it talked with, asking for further meetings and the answer was no. That is the state of play.

Mr. Trimble: I hope that that exchange is a clear reflection of the situation and that the phrase "not have relationships" is as comprehensive as it appears, because briefings that were given by Northern Ireland Office officials to the press last week seemed to imply that they were open to some form of further communication with Sinn Fein, which of course is contrary to the spirit of the Prime Minister's statement, to the exact letter of the assurance given by Lord Richard and to what the Secretary of State has said.
I hope that she will ensure that what she has said is carried out in practice—but then, of course, we have had such assurances before. We had assurances that, in the talks between officials and Sinn Fein, there would be no negotiations yet, when the aide-memoire was published, it was clear that a very strange interpretation of the word "negotiations" was being used.

Marjorie Mowlam: I am not trying to be obtuse; I am trying to be clear and helpful. The Prime Minister said after

Lurgan that there would be no contact. There has been no contact. Two telephone calls were made. We said no to both. That is the state of play. Could the hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he talks about relationships, because I am not clear and I want to be helpful?

Mr. Trimble: I used the term "have no relationships" merely because that was the phrase that was used by the Secretary of State. I am not clear what that phrase means either; that is why I spoke a little further on it. Does having no relationships mean having no contact and no communication—nothing? I am happy with that and I hope that that is the case. I see the Secretary of State giving me a thumbs-up. We shall interpret that as an affirmative response to my question.

Rev. Martin Smyth: There is a whisper going around in Northern Ireland that someone has initiated video conferencing. We appreciate the response from the Secretary of State, but, ultimately, she would be responsible. Is it possible that someone else in the security services is doing something?

Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend refers to a real concern that has existed in Northern Ireland for a long time—that people not responsible to the Secretary of State are following an agenda of their own.

Marjorie Mowlam: rose—

Mr. Trimble: If the Secretary of State is going to clarify that matter also, I will be glad to hear it.

Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to give further clarification to the hon. Gentleman. There has been no video cassette recorder contact between ourselves and Sinn Fein. The rumour may come from the time—to be absolutely straight with people—when we were trying, in the context of the marching season, to get different groups together that would not sit down and talk to each other. We suggested the VCR as one mechanism whereby people would not have to be in the same room but there could be direct communication with them so that there could be some discussion. I do not think that I have revealed any private discussions that we have had with the different groups in the Parades Commission, but I presume that that is where—as with so much in Northern Ireland—that rumour has sprung from.

Mr. Trimble: That does not entirely resolve the matter, because some of the groups to which the Secretary of State refers include individuals who we believe are part of Sinn Fein-IRA and, to a significant degree, those groups are subject to Sinn Fein-IRA's influence, but in any event there would be no concern in Northern Ireland about such matters if assurances that were given at the Dispatch Box were honoured; too often, they have not been. That is true not just of the previous Government or of other Governments; after the publication of the aide-memoire, clearly it is also true of this Government. There has not been the honesty that one would have hoped for.
Before that excursus, we were talking about the need for action to be taken to end this squalid, inadequate system of administration called direct rule and for the Grand Committee to be developed to give some


opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to discuss matters relating to Northern Ireland, including Northern Ireland legislation, and to hold the Government to account. We could also refer to the clear need to make progress where it can be made and where we know that it can be made successfully.
The Secretary of State referred to that in her opening speech: she mentioned the development of partnerships in local government and how the experience of giving local government additional powers has been positive. I note the comments made by Lord Dubs on the issue. Admittedly they are of a general nature, but I hope they show that there will be progress in relation to local government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
My next point relates to the inter-party talks and the point that was welcomed by the hon. Member for Hull, North. Last week's statement referred to a timetable for the talks. Of course we all hope that those talks will be able to proceed successfully and that, at their conclusion, we will have what the Prime Minister indicated: a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland with sensible arrangements for north-south dialogue. That would not cause problems to my party. We hope that such an assembly will be established and that those elements in the talks that want to prevent that from happening are not able to obstruct progress in the talks.
The timetable in itself is not a problem for us because, as the Secretary of State knows, under the legislation, the forum has only a two-year existence and will cease to exist by May next year. Of course, it has been a fixed position of the Unionist parties that, without a forum, there should be no negotiations, so, unless the legislation were changed, negotiations would never in any event have lasted beyond May next year. However, let us hope that the Government mean it when they say that there is going to be a timetable for the talks. As evidence that they do, are they prepared to commit themselves to a timetable for the ending of direct rule and to give a clear undertaking today that this will be the last time that direct rule is extended?
There will be time between the end of the talks and the expiry of direct rule for the reinstatement, perhaps in an amended form, of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [Interruption.] Yes, it would have to be in an amended form. Therefore, if the Government are serious about their timetable, let them commit themselves to a timetable. If they are not prepared to commit themselves to a timetable for the ending of direct rule, we may be permitted to doubt their attachment to the timetable for talks.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: I will be brief because I know that hon. Members from Northern Ireland wish to speak, and time is running on.
May I offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for her remarkable endeavours in a post that she has occupied for only two months? Despite the fact that he claimed that I was asleep earlier, I also offer my compliments to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). He made a judicious speech and was right to call for the setting up of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. I believe that I am right in saying that the Welsh Grand Committee met today and the Scottish Grand Committee will meet upstairs on 8 July.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell that more autonomy should be given to local authorities in Northern Ireland. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister

of State, Northern Ireland Office will recall that, last week, I said that, in their quest for a modus vivendi, the representatives of the Orange Order and of the Garvaghy Road residents association could do worse than to follow the remarkable example of Canon Sean Connolly, who has suspended Saturday evening masses in Harryville until, I believe, September. Whatever our religious affiliation, we all have readily to acknowledge that that was a remarkable and magnanimous gesture. Others should seek to emulate his public-spiritedness.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Godman: I said that I would be brief, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very brief.

Mr. Maginnis: Indeed. The great majority of people from the tradition to which I belong regarded what was happening at Harryville as an obscenity. We had no sympathy for the protests made outside the church. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take no satisfaction from what happened; nor would we have encouraged anyone to cease holding services in Harryville at any time. I believe that part of the reason why the services were brought to an end is that attendance often falls in summer when people go on holiday. We would defend the right of people in Harryville to go to their church, and many of our party members have done so with their presence and support.

Mr. Godman: I was about to thank the hon. Gentleman for a remarkably gracious intervention, but then he mentioned the falling off of attendance at services. I think that that could have been omitted from his otherwise fine intervention. Seriously, though, I am grateful for his comments.
I promised that I would be brief, and I have two questions to put to the Minister of State. First, have he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State any plans to strengthen the powers of the Police Authority? Secondly, what initial responses have my right hon. Friend and her ministerial colleagues received concerning the proposed Northern Ireland Assembly? In addition to the opinions offered by the Northern Ireland political parties, has any interim observation been made by representatives of the new Government south of the border in the Irish Republic?
If an Assembly is to be established. I sincerely hope that it will not be based on the system by which we are elected to this place. It has to be by a system of proportional representation—perish the thought that my right hon. Friend would ever dream of introducing the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency. I suspect that most Deputies in the Dail would rather have a different system.
I commend to my right hon. Friend the system agreed by members of the Constitutional Convention in Scotland which is akin to the German system—a system which I have favoured all my adult life. Certainly, the first-past-the-post system would be wholly inappropriate for an Assembly in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The House should not consider it a slight that so few Northern Ireland Members are here. It is not simply a matter of the


inadequacy of the time available to consider the motion; there have been serious difficulties in getting flights to London from Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and some Ulster Unionists attempted to get flights, but were unable to do so.
I wish the shadow Secretary of State well as he takes on his new responsibility. This is probably the first time that the current Secretary of State has been at the Dispatch Box dealing with a constitutional motion. I hope that she has some more experience of that during her time in office and I hope that any such motion that comes here is capable of gaining the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
I have been taking part in this ritual since 1979. I remember the early debates when it was intended that such orders were supposed to be a temporary measure. It was to be only one or two years before we had some permanent structures in Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland would have responsibility for a wide range of functions through their elected representatives. That has not been the case. Given the first year of the talks process that I witnessed, I have to say that, if it depends on agreement arising from that process, we might be coming back to renew the motion for many years to come.
The Secretary of State referred to the talks process. Many people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the initiative, if one can call it that, of the Prime Minister when he released the aide-memoire of the discussions that had been taking place under his authority with Sinn Fein-IRA. My understanding was that the Prime Minister had made it clear that the purpose of the discussions with Sinn Fein-IRA was to clarify the Government's position to them so that there would be no misunderstanding.
I thought that, when one clarifies one's position, one clarifies the position as it is; but it is abundantly clear from the aide-memoire that the Prime Minister has developed the Government's position. He has extended it and produced new initiatives in the aide-memoire. I should like the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate, to clarify one or two points in the statement.
The first element of the statement relates to the first IRA demand that it needs a clear time scale within which it would be part of the talks process. There has been much talk in the media, and the abbreviation of this condition is that IRA-Sinn Fein will enter the talks six weeks after what is termed an unequivocal cessation of violence. That, however, is not what the document says.
The document says that it will be six weeks before the IRA will be at a plenary meeting in the talks process, but goes on to say that in the period immediately following a ceasefire, for which I must read that same day or the next day, it will have entry to Castle buildings, access to meetings with the chairman, access to meetings with the Government and the opportunity to engage in bilateral meetings with other political parties at Stormont castle. Are we clear that these contacts are to take place not after six weeks but, as the aide-memoire says, immediately a ceasefire is declared? The Secretary of State has not

jumped to her feet with her characteristic promptness, but I presume that the Minister of State will attempt to answer at the end of the debate.
The Minister might also like to grapple with the issue of explaining to the people of Northern Ireland how, overnight, or—at best—in six weeks, it will be possible for the Government to assess the genuineness of any ceasefire that the IRA may declare.
The second issue that requires some clarification relates to the time frame. Is the Prime Minister saying in the aide-memoire that there will be no further extension of the talks process and that the process ends in May 1998? I should like to know the Government's view on that.
The third matter that requires clarification relates to decommissioning. It is on this issue that I do not believe the Government have fully clarified their position, perhaps deliberately. To suggest that they embrace the Mitchell report in its entirety is not the same as saying that they believe in parallel decommissioning where decommissioning would be completed by the end of the process.
All that Mitchell requires is that some decommissioning shall take place during the talks process; it does not require all decommissioning to take place and does not specify when it can start. Is it to be simultaneous? Is it to start on the first day? Are guns going to be deposited on the first day that the three-stranded talks begin? Or is it to be left to a body that is subject to an SDLP and Dublin veto to determine the rate at which the handing over of illegal weapons is to take place? If it is the latter, clearly the IRA would be in the process and would not have to hand over any guns during the entire process. The Northern Ireland public deserve a response from the Secretary of State on that issue.
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I do not believe that the Government have to wait until they see the outcome of the process to make further changes, particularly in local government. I listened with some interest to the remarks made by Lord Dubs at the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives conference about how Ministers are examining changes that they might make in local government. One must, therefore, assume that they are examining the issue, regardless of whether they are doing so within or without the context of a settlement in a wider area. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the Government will do and what their time scale will be in changing local government.
I should also like to ask the Secretary of State about the life of the Northern Ireland Forum—a body which was established by the House under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 and has a specific responsibility. The body was established because Parliament deemed that that was appropriate. I hoped that the Secretary of State and her Ministers would respond more favourably to meeting members of that forum and its committees.
Such meetings have not taken place. I urge the Secretary of State—who seems to be very prepared to go round the country to meet all sorts of people—to spend some time meeting those who have been elected under an Act of Parliament to represent the people of Northern Ireland in that forum. It is important that she should realise that members of that forum feel that she has snubbed and slighted them by thus far not being prepared to meet them.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—I think that that is still the name of his constituency—seemed to be a bit concerned about the Prime Minister's remarks about articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Republic's constitution. He should not be concerned, because I did not find anything very positive in the Prime Minister's remarks. The remarks indicated not that the Republic had to abandon its territorial claim but that the principle of consent should be enshrined in its constitution. It is, of course, quite possible for the Republic to enshrine the principle of consent within its constitution and still to maintain a jurisdictional claim.
The hon. Member for Hull, North should therefore not be too concerned about the remarks. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has gone the distance that would be required of him on articles 2 and 3, and I certainly do not believe that the Government of the Irish Republic are ready to move in that direction. A fudge by inserting the principle of consent into the Irish constitution would not be satisfactory for the Unionist community.
I should also tell the hon. Member for Hull, North that the triple lock was a device by which agreement would have to be approved by the parties and people of Northern Ireland and by the United Kingdom Parliament. Although he did not say it, I hope that he meant to tell the House that—if he envisages the fall of the talks process, and even if the issue of Northern Ireland's parties' support is not dealt with—he still believes that an agreement must have the consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the principle of consent which was enshrined in the Prime Minister's speech.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Robinson: I think that the hon. Member for Hull, North wants to intervene to say that he believes only in the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. If that is what he wants to say, I will be happy to give him an opportunity to do so.

Mr. McNamara: I believe that an agreement will have to have the consent of the United Kingdom Parliament. I believe also that the people of Northern Ireland, while they are members of the United Kingdom and wish to remain so, must accept the wishes of Parliament, even if they sometimes go against their wishes.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman does not believe in the Labour party's policy that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland will be required to make any change. I think that he would much more quickly voice his agreement if it were a matter of attaining the consent of all the people of Ireland.
Like everyone in Northern Ireland, I should like there to be a peaceful marching season. There is absolutely no reason why that should not happen. There have already been indications that, left to themselves, the loyal orders are capable of conducting dignified parades in a responsible and law-abiding manner. As the hon. Member for Hull, North said, there are two sets of rights—the right to assemble and parade, and the right to feel safe and secure in one's own home.
The only outcome of the process has been to demonstrate that there are responsibilities on both sides. The first responsibility is placed on those who participate

in parades, which they must do in a sensitive and dignified manner, offering no offence to those through whose areas they may pass.
Secondly and equally, responsibilities are placed on those who live in areas through which parades may pass, to recognise people's right to exercise their cultural rights to demonstrate their own traditions. If people on both sides were prepared to do those things, I do not think that there would be a problem during the marching season. People's right to march is a basic part of our British constitution, and it should not be lost because the IRA designs and works for years to ensure that it is used as a means of conflict.
In the next days, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable will undoubtedly have to make a difficult decision. If they will take some advice from me, they will allow the parade in Drumcree to proceed. They should also ensure that the parade is held in a manner that does not cause offence or insult to anyone. If they do that, any action that might flow in subsequent days or weeks will be clearly seen to originate with those whose only intention in the entire process is to cause tension, division and turmoil in our society.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I begin by apologising on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who, of course, cannot intervene in my speech. She had intended to offer apologies for hon. Members from Northern Ireland who were unable, because of air traffic delays in Belfast, to get to the House for this debate.
The debate was short, but, none the less, it was constructive and informed. The hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) both mentioned the fact that it has been almost a quarter of a century since Great Britain has had direct rule over the affairs of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bracknell also asked why an hon. Member such as myself, who represents a south Wales constituency, or himself, who represents a constituency in England, should be dealing with the daily matters of government of Northern Ireland. I believe that Northern Ireland deserves a proper, good and balanced constitutional settlement and, in this debate, many hon. Members have said the same.
The hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Bracknell mentioned problems with the Select Committee, with the Grand Committee and with local government. I should tell them that members of the Select Committee will soon be appointed and that the exact nature and details of the Grand Committee is being reviewed. Only this afternoon, for example, we discussed the Scottish Grand Committee. There is, therefore, no question but that we will soon deal with a Grand Committee.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister explain what he means by the word "reviewed"? A Grand Committee has been established and rules of procedure have been agreed and are in the Order Paper. What is preventing the Government from establishing a Grand Committee and referring matters to it, as has been done for Scotland and Wales? Week after week, at business questions, my hon.


Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has been asking for Government action on the matter. What need is there for another review?

Mr. Murphy: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are no problems in principle with the Grand Committee. As he knows, the previous Government made changes at the very end of the last Session. The present Government are examining the details of those changes, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Grand Committee will be established.
Let me also refer to the problems involving local government and Orders in Council. We regret those constitutional difficulties. They arise because a proper settlement has not yet been reached in Northern Ireland. When that occurs, the British Parliament will be able to say that the people of Northern Ireland will have their own arrangements. That is what the talks in Belfast that resume tomorrow are all about.
The Government's programme includes constitutional developments in Scotland and Wales, where there are to be referendums for the Parliament and the Assembly. Although the pace of constitutional settlement should allow for the inclusion of Northern Ireland, as all hon. Members know, that pace depends on what happens in the talks and in Castle buildings in the weeks ahead. We must move on to substantive issues as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the problems of decommissioning, which will be examined in the talks in the next few weeks. At the end of the day, it will be for the participants in those talks—including all the parties represented—to resolve those matters. The proposals put forward by the two Governments offer the way ahead.

Mr. Maginnis: The Minister oversimplifies matters when he says that it will be for the parties to the talks to decide how we proceed. It is necessary that the disarmament commission should be put in place. That is the responsibility of the British Government in consultation with the Government of the Irish Republic. Can the Minister tell us now whether we have reached the stage of identifying a single member of that commission or whether, in fact, he is contravening article 4(e) of his own decommissioning paper by not having taken a decision on that?

Mr. Murphy: I agree that there has to be swift action regarding appointments to such bodies. That is vital. I also agree that there should be regular two-monthly assessments in the review procedure that we are discussing tomorrow and that all those matters should be speedily resolved. However, all that will depend on the participants in the talks in Belfast. I hope and pray that those decisions will be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made many interesting points. I pay tribute to all his commitment and dedication over the years on Northern Ireland matters. On the specific points he raised, obviously the triple lock applies and the principle of consent is vital to all matters involving Northern Ireland. Consent is vital and the triple lock is built in. They are the essential building blocks of any settlement that we reach.
We want Sinn Fein to be involved in the talks, and Sinn Fein knows what to do in order to be there. It needs to renounce violence and unequivocally restore the ceasefire of 1994.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister was responding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who referred to a quid pro quo arising out of the Prime Minister's speech on articles 2 and 3. Is there a suggestion, for example, that the United Kingdom should give up any claim on Rockall? There does not seem to be another quid pro quo, as there is no other claim by this nation on the territory of the Republic.

Mr. Murphy: The issue of east-west relations has to be examined properly. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that has to be carried out in all seriousness. I am sure that the issues will be addressed in the weeks and months ahead.
All hon. Members agree that the bomb and the ballot box do not mix. The talks will continue—if necessary, without Sinn Fein. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made that clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has shown remarkable energy and courage in trying to make progress in regard to the parades. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) said what many of us think—that we should pay tribute to the parish priest of Harryville. I was delighted that he was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We urge restraint on those who think that disorder will resolve the issue. We urge dialogue so that a local accommodation can be achieved and we urge all those who wield influence in Northern Ireland—whether it is economic, political or religious—to use all their skills to prevent confrontation in the weeks ahead.
Our comprehensive spending review provides the opportunity for people in Northern Ireland from all walks of life to let us know where their spending priorities lie. I am hopeful that this week's Budget will contain proposals to take thousands of young people in Northern Ireland from welfare to work.
The next few weeks will be testing ones for everyone in Northern Ireland. They will also be crucial for our country. Although there have been few Members in the Chamber, the world will be watching what occurs in Northern Ireland in the next two or three weeks.
We hope that the talks will move ahead quickly, that they will include all parties in Northern Ireland and that, by this time next year, we shall be well on our way to achieving a lasting and balanced constitutional settlement for everyone in Northern Ireland. I understand the problems of hon. Members on both sides of the House in coming to terms with the difficulties that we all face, but when we meet in Castle buildings tomorrow, and doubtless meet again between now and the recess, there will be a responsibility for everyone at the talks, including the two Governments, to ensure that we reach a resolution on the decommissioning project. Only then will we be able to move on to the substantive constitutional issues that exercise the minds of all who are interested in the future good governance of Northern Ireland. To that end, I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

Satellite Television

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Satellite Television Service Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
The regulations have been laid before the House under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Their purpose is to implement a judgment of the European Court of Justice concerning the United Kingdom's implementation of articles 2(1), 2(2) and 3(2) of the 1989 broadcasting directive, which is perhaps better known in the House and elsewhere as the "television without frontiers" directive.
In brief, the Court found that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive by misinterpreting the basis on which satellite broadcasters fell within United Kingdom jurisdiction, by applying different licensing regimes to domestic and non-domestic satellite services and by exercising control over broadcasts transmitted by broadcasters falling within the jurisdiction of other member states.
This is an opportune moment to debate the regulations, as a revised version of the broadcasting directive was recently adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
The broadcasting directive is a single market instrument that governs transfrontier television broadcasting within the European Union. For it to work effectively, it is essential that certain elements are implemented in a common manner by all member states. One such element is the determination of which country should have jurisdiction over a broadcaster.
In the United Kingdom, the Independent Television Commission licenses and regulates all broadcasters that come under UK jurisdiction, with the exception of the BBC and S4C. Other countries operate different systems, but from the European Union perspective, the crucial factor is that each broadcaster should come under the jurisdiction of only one member state. To achieve that, it is clearly essential that a single system of determining jurisdiction is in operation throughout the Community.
That is where a problem arose. The wording of the 1989 directive was ambiguous. When member states came to implement the directive at national level, differing interpretations of the provisions on jurisdiction were exposed. The UK chose to use satellite uplink as the basis of jurisdiction. That was the criterion used in the Council of Europe's convention on transfrontier television, which predated the directive and was, to some extent, a model for European broadcasting regulation. Other member states, however, used the broadcaster's place of establishment.
Establishment and uplink are both fairly complex issues, but in simple terms, establishment concerns the place in which an organisation is based. The place of establishment of a broadcaster is generally held to be the place in which it has its head office and where decisions about programming content are made. Uplink is the technical process whereby programmes are broadcast, from a specific transmitter on the earth to a satellite, from where they are subsequently downlinked back to satellite receptors on earth.
The situation did not cause too many practical problems, because the vast majority of services uplinked from the UK are by broadcasters also established in the UK. Nevertheless, it was clearly necessary to have a common interpretation throughout the EU to ensure that a member state, or its regulator, would know which Government were the sole licensing authority. Monitoring the implementation of directives, the European Commission considered that, by using uplink as the basis of jurisdiction, the UK had misinterpreted the broadcasting directive. In 1992, therefore, it initiated the legal infractions process.
In responding to the Commission, the Government of the day took the view that the UK had implemented the directive properly. The legal process was pursued through its various stages, culminating in the judgment of the European Court of Justice last September. The judgment recognised that the existing directive was ambiguous, but found that establishment was the correct basis for determining jurisdiction. The regulations implement the Court's judgment by changing the basis of jurisdiction over broadcasters from uplink to establishment.
We now also have the benefit of the revisions to the 1989 directive, including article 2, where the ambiguity to which I referred is removed. The revised directive, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament earlier this month, states clearly that establishment shall be the basis of jurisdiction and sets out a hierarchy of criteria for defining the place of establishment of broadcasters. These regulations can now be read alongside the detailed guidance in the revised directive.
The practical effect of the change is minimal. According to the Independent Television Commission, of the more than 150 broadcasters currently holding satellite broadcasting licences, only half a dozen at most will be affected.
In the second part of its judgment, creating a single satellite licensing regime, the European Court of Justice found that the UK had unlawfully established two licensing regimes for satellite broadcasting in the Broadcasting Act 1990. Domestic satellite services were defined as those that used UK frequencies and were designed for general reception in the UK. Non-domestic satellite services were those that did not use UK frequencies and were intended for general reception in the UK and elsewhere. The Court's judgment found that the distinction between those two regimes was discriminatory and that the UK was favouring its own viewers by imposing a more rigorous content regime on domestic satellite service licensees.
That had not been the intention or the effect of the UK's distinction between the two regimes. The large majority of the more than 150 licensed non-domestic satellite services use non-UK frequencies, but broadcast wholly or mainly to UK audiences. The different domestic satellite regime merely applies to UK satellite frequencies the kind of procedure applied for commercial UK terrestrial broadcasting frequencies—bids for the use of the spectrum and controls on content reflecting the scarcity of the resource.
Nevertheless, under the revised directive the UK clearly must license all satellite broadcasters established in the UK on the same basis. The regulations accordingly remove the distinction between the two types of satellite


service. The consequence of the change is to abolish the domestic satellite service regime and to rename the non-domestic satellite service. Licences issued under the new unified regime will be known as satellite television service licences.
Again, the effect of the change on existing licensees is minimal. There are at present no domestic satellite service licence holders—and there never have been. The new integrated regime, removing some of the restrictions applying to the use of UK frequencies, may, however, encourage more services to emerge. In particular, the duration of domestic satellite service licences, which requires broadcasters to plan and broadcast for 15 years, as opposed to 10 years for non-domestic services, may have acted as a deterrent to broadcasters from using UK allocated frequencies.
The Government are fully committed to complying with their international obligations. The regulations will enable the United Kingdom to do so in respect of the European Union broadcasting directive. They will not, however, have any material effect on the thriving UK satellite broadcasting industry. I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. John Whittingdale: This is the first occasion on which I have addressed the House from the Dispatch Box. I am happy to be able to contribute to the general harmony of this place by agreeing with the Secretary of State and saying that we support the regulations. Indeed, I understand that they were drafted under the last Conservative Government.
I convey the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is in Hong Kong this evening, witnessing the handover. I have no doubt that he would otherwise have been replying to this short debate.
I do not believe that there is any need to detain the House on the regulations. The Secretary of State correctly explained that the first provision implements the European Court of Justice judgment, changing the basis on which the United Kingdom takes jurisdiction over a broadcaster. It is clearly sensible that that should be agreed common practice between member states. The European system—that jurisdiction is based on the country in which the broadcaster is established rather than the country from which the broadcaster happens to uplink—seems more appropriate. As I understand it, the change will have no effect on UK broadcasters and those broadcasting in the English language into the UK, merely removing an anomaly which could have been abused.
It is also worth noting that there have been suggestions that some other member states might have tried to challenge the UK's regulatory regime in an attempt to avoid having to accept broadcasts on the basis of an ITC licence alone. The change will remove that possibility so that, in future, ITC licences will be recognised without challenge across Europe.
On the second provision, the change is clearly beneficial. It will remove the distinction between domestic and non-domestic satellite services. Such a distinction is purely historic and has no relevance today. As a veteran of the Committee sittings on the

Broadcasting Bill, I can say from experience that the distinction was a source of considerable confusion because, as the Secretary of State has explained, no domestic satellite services exist and all satellite broadcasts are defined as non-domestic. On occasion, that has given the impression that those companies responsible for satellite broadcasts into the United Kingdom are foreign and that they may not be subject to regulation.
Neither of those impressions is true. The best-known broadcaster, BSkyB, is a British company, which invests billions of pounds in this country and deserves proper recognition as such. United Kingdom satellite services are also rightly subject to licensing by the ITC and to scrutiny by the Broadcasting Standards Council. The new description of satellite television services is therefore both more accurate and more sensible.
The Secretary of State has explained in detail precisely the way in which the regulations will operate. We have no problems with anything that he has said and, on that basis, we are happy to support the motion.

Mr. Phil Willis: In the spirit of harmony, I, too, can say that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are very supportive of what is proposed. As a new Member, I must confess that the statement was one of the most confusing ever delivered, but I trust that, on reading it tomorrow, I will find it much clearer.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the hysterical press headlines that greeted the European Court of Justice ruling last year that satellite broadcasters should be licensed in the country in which they have their headquarters. One may make light of that, but there was a genuine fear that that interpretation would mean that broadcasting from countries with very liberal—I use that word in its true sense—laws, especially on child and other types of pornography, was allowed into the United Kingdom.
I have only two questions for the Secretary of State. First, will he continue to be able to proscribe a foreign satellite service that, in the opinion of the Independent Television Commission, would offend good taste and decency, as has always happened in the past? Could his answer go on record? Secondly, will he ensure that the provisions of the television without frontiers directive, which protects minors, will be rigorously applied?

Mr. Chris Smith: With permission, I should first warmly welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale) to his new post and thank him for his welcome support for the motion. I likewise thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, for his support. I hasten to give him assurances on both the questions that he asked. The answer to both is yes.
As the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East said, it is of course sensible to do two things: first, there should be agreed common practice across Europe in relation to the definitions of where regulation should take place; and, secondly, the impression that domestic services are somehow foreign should be assisted by a much more accurate description—as well as unifying the two disparate definitions that we have at the moment.
It may have seemed from my speech that the statement was one of the most confusing that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has ever heard, but I think that when he reads it in Hansard tomorrow morning he will find that it is a model of lucid clarity. With that in mind, I commend the very sensible and worthy regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Satellite Television Service Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the provision of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers Panels) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Marconi Communications

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of redundancies at Marconi Communications in my constituency. The issue is obviously extremely pressing and urgent for the people of Chelmsford and the mid-Essex area. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale) is in his place. With me, he has been involved in the matter over the past two weeks or so, pursuing it at a ministerial level and with the trade unions and companies in Chelmsford.
It is a cruel irony that, when unemployment is falling significantly in the mid-Essex area, unemployment in my constituency is down from the height of 4,600 during the recession in the early 1990s to about 1,600 people, economic activity is picking up significantly and the retail sector is doing so well, once again we face a body blow of devastating proportions. Due to the ending of the cold war, the peace dividend and the world recession in the early 1990s—when the market became worldwide and far more competitive, and contracts were more difficult to win—535 redundancies at Marconi Communications have been announced, as well as the closing down of the Marconi college, with the loss of 46 jobs in the town.
It is true that Chelmsford, like other parts of the country, has paid a very heavy price for the peace dividend over the past few years. In fairness, it should be pointed out that, of all the defence-related industries in my constituency, Marconi Communications is less reliant on defence contracts, because it has been diversifying for many years and has of course benefited from a number of civilian contracts. None the less, due to the peace dividend and the contracting of the world market, it, too, has found it very difficult in the new, highly competitive market to win sufficient contracts to maintain the level of employment that it has enjoyed in the past.
To understand the impact of the redundancies, it would be sensible to put into context the history of the manufacturing base in the town and the surrounding area. Chelmsford has always been associated with Marconi companies. In my constituency, there is Marconi Communications, Marconi Radar and the English Electric Valve company. We used to have Marconi Phone and Marconi Marine, and of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East has Marconi Research in his constituency.
Chelmsford and Marconi have been synonymous ever since Marconi set up his factory in the town at the beginning of the century. Twenty years ago, the Marconi companies and English Electric Valve employed just over 11,000 people in the town—one of the main employers outside the local authorities based there—providing jobs not only directly but for all the back-up services. Over the past five and a half years, though, we have seen the all-too-dismal repetition of job losses in those companies.
In January 1992, 150 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; in March 1992, 140 jobs were lost at Marconi Phones; in June 1992, 600 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar and 225 jobs at Marconi Communications;


in February 1993, 95 jobs were lost at English Electric Valves; in July 1993, 300 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar; in 1994, 180 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; and last year, a further 150 jobs were lost, also at Marconi Communications. In the past two weeks, we have felt the body blow of 535 further redundancies at Marconi Communications.
With the latest redundancies, some 3,500 people will be left working for GEC companies in the town, compared with the 11,000 of 20 years ago. Those figures show the decline in manufacturing jobs in defence-related industries in that time, with some 2,500 of those jobs going in the past five and a half years. Marconi Communications' work force will have been halved to slightly more than 500 when the current redundancies have worked through the system in the next two years. I fear that the redundancies will be front loaded, and a majority of them will occur in the early months of those two years.
Behind that dismal story is a more worrying factor—the erosion of the manufacturing base in the town. The 600 redundancies at Marconi Radar that I mentioned earlier meant the elimination of manufacturing in the town when GEC moved that activity to Leicester. Worryingly, the majority of the redundancies that have been announced at Marconi Communications represents the remaining manufacturing base at that firm. If and when they go, the manufacturing base as we know it will go, and only an assembly line and research and development will remain. That would be a grievous loss for the town and for the industrial base in mid-Essex.
Two challenges face us before the redundancies come into effect. First, we must try to salvage what we can of the manufacturing side of Marconi Communications; secondly, we must provide every assistance possible to those facing redundancy to maximise their potential to get back to work as quickly as possible. I shall deal with those challenges in order.
On the question of manufacturing, I hope that, even at this late stage, Marconi Communications will be prepared to think again. I met the trade union representatives on Friday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East will meet them on Thursday. I have written to the managing director of Marconi Communications requesting a meeting with my hon. Friend, me and the trade union representatives to discuss whether it is possible for the firm to reconsider its decision. I understand that no company makes people redundant lightly. It is done because of economic circumstances. However, because Marconi will continue to assemble products on the site, it is worth asking the company to reconsider its decision.
I wish to suggest a number of options that may provide a way forward, although I know that it is not the Government's role to create jobs per se. It never has been, and it would be foolish of me, simply because we no longer have a Conservative Government, to change my long-held view and start blaming this Government for what has happened. Governments can—indeed, it is a fundamental responsibility of Governments, regardless of their political complexion—create the economic climate in which jobs can be created.
If industry and commerce flourish, that will stimulate demand so that people wish to buy the goods or services available, and that leads to job creation. Governments can also create an environment that encourages companies to invest in research and development to identify niches in the market and fill them with new products for people to buy, to safeguard and create jobs.
If it is not feasible or possible for Marconi Communications to reconsider and moderate its proposals, I wish to ask whether consideration can be given to a management buy-out so that manufacturing work can continue on the manufacturing site in the town to supply the assembly lines of Marconi Communications. The people who are facing redundancy are a highly skilled and trained work force, and are used to the ways of the company because they have worked there—in some cases, for many years. Why not harness that expertise and experience through a management buy-out so that the work force can continue to produce the parts and components that Marconi needs for the assembly of its products?
If that is not possible—the management may not wish to invest their redundancy money in a management buy-out—other workers may wish to group together to set up small satellite companies to do the supply work. Other companies in the mid-Essex area already supply the GEC companies and that option could be encouraged. It is a truism, but also a fact of life, that the small businesses of today can become the medium and larger companies and employers of the future. If people can use their skills, with advice, encouragement and help, to set up businesses—as happened to one small company when Marconi Radar made manufacturing redundancies a few years ago—part of the manufacturing base would be safeguarded. I hope that the company will seriously consider those ideas when our meeting takes place in the next few weeks.
The Government have a role to play, even if indirectly, in job creation. As I said earlier, Governments do not have the power to create proper jobs, although they can throw money at artificial jobs, which is in no one's long-term interest. Governments can ensure that the available schemes are used to the maximum effect to help people facing redundancy. I wish to thank the Minister for her prompt reply to a written question that I tabled two weeks ago. She announced that employees from Marconi Communications would have immediate access to the Government's training-for-work programme and that the normal qualifying period of six months' unemployment would be waived. That is greatly appreciated in my constituency as a positive and meaningful step forward to help people who are currently distressed by, and worried about, the uncertainty that they face.
The Minister also mentioned in her answer that further measures are being considered for the action plan, including advice, guidance, training courses, help with job search and assistance to individuals and groups interested in starting their own businesses. That action would dovetail easily with any aspirations to set up satellite companies. The written answer also mentioned help under the KONVER programme, which I remember pursuing vigorously, with my colleagues, when I was a parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry.
That will help, as did the long-term investment for the advanced manufacturing centre in Chelmsford when the last major wave of redundancies was announced in the


town. That has done so much to help the people who were made redundant to get retraining and to set up small businesses from a basis of a total lack of knowledge of how to do so. The centre does tremendous work, and has dedicated staff to whom I pay tribute. The scheme was financed with European money, and I subscribe to the old adage that, whatever one's view of a scheme, it is better for it to come to one's constituency rather than go elsewhere.
We are grateful for all the work that is being done to try to help people and to minimise uncertainty, as that is as great a problem for individuals as their redundancy. It is good that the company has hired consultants to help the work force with advice and counselling. I am pleased by the actions of the Employment Service, the Essex Careers and Business Partnership, the Business Development Advisory Service, business link, Essex county council and Chelmsford district council. The advanced manufacturing centre and Essex training and enterprise council are also involved, and I saw the chief executive of Essex TEC on Friday morning.
The swift action from those organisations and the Government's regional offices is heartening, and they have tried to come up with practical help for those people, rather than just sitting around a table and talking in meaningless platitudes. I have seen the programme produced by the TEC for the different activities and time scales of the different organisations and its projections of what they will be doing in the future. That part of the package has been prepared and is greatly appreciated. I should like the Minister to elaborate on the help, advice and training to which she has referred, so that we know exactly what will be on offer and what people can expect. They can then start thinking seriously about the best way forward to maximise their opportunities in securing another job.
Secondly, I am grateful to the Minister for Defence Procurement—whom my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East and I visited last week—for his comments on the Government's defence procurement policy. Clearly, this is not a significant matter for Marconi Communications, but it is important to the other companies in the town which are more reliant on defence procurement contracts. Obviously, a great deal of the work of Marconi Communications is in the civilian sector, although there are overlaps with military contracts.
I was pleased by the assurances from the Government that they plan to continue the policy of the previous Government of a £9 billion-plus defence procurement budget, in which about 90 per cent. goes to British companies—or to conglomerates of which 50 per cent. consists of British companies—to safeguard British jobs. Clearly, contracts can be placed only when it is feasible to do so, as the British taxpayer must get value for money and the armed forces must get the best equipment possible. It is heartening that the Government are committed to continue the last Government's policy where it is feasible.
I should be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on what the Government's plans for a defence diversification agency mean and how they would impact on defence-related industries. From a philosophical, rather than a narrow party political point of view, there is a potential difficulty which, without knowing the full details about the agency, means that one has to be cautious. We have seen in the past—particularly in the 1970s—

well-meaning, although misguided, examples where agencies sought to guide and influence commercial decisions. That failed because business men and their companies know the best decisions to take. I should be worried if an agency were to be seen as interfering in the running of a company.
That may not be the case, and we are in the dark as to the aims, aspirations and purpose of the agency. It would be interesting to know more about how the agency would impact on larger companies, although I can see how it could impact on small and medium companies. Marconi has had the commercial sense in the past decade to see that it was important to diversify and broaden its base. In fairness to the Marconi companies, they have done so. The trouble is, as any business man knows, that when a company seeks to diversify beyond its core business into areas where there are already established companies, it is more difficult entering the new markets. Notwithstanding that, the Marconi companies have made strenuous and successful efforts to diversify their base into civilian markets, and that is a positive thing.
I have said on numerous occasions—when, sadly, I have had debates of this nature—that I am not of the neanderthal school of politics, believing that anyone who is unemployed is a scrounger. That is a travesty. Those people are desperate for work, and they do not want to be reliant upon the state for their income. They want to work and contribute to companies so as to enhance and improve their standard of living.
We are grateful for the help that has been given so far, and I am grateful to the Minister for being here to reply to the debate. We look forward to what she has to say, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East and I can tell our constituents what is going on. We want to tell them that they will not become the forgotten people of Chelmsford, languishing in the dole queues with no one giving a damn. They will know that my hon. Friend and I—despite our limited powers to do anything—will continue to pursue the matter to make sure that they get all the help to which they are entitled for retraining, counselling and advice so that they can get back to work as quickly as possible.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, West (Mr. Burns) on his initiative in obtaining this debate, and I thank him for allowing me to speak briefly in it. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has taken the time to attend the debate.
My hon. Friend has ably represented the town of Chelmsford for the past 10 years. Sadly, he has had some experience of trying to ensure that as much help as possible is given to those who have been made redundant from Marconi.
As the Member of Parliament representing Maldon for the past five years, I have obviously been aware that a number of my constituents in the Maldon district have been affected by the redundancies. As a result of boundary changes, I now represent part of Chelmsford town, so I shall work even more closely in future with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, West on behalf of the people of Chelmsford.
I do not want to add a great deal to what my hon. Friend has said about the plight of those who have been made redundant, but I reiterate that I do not expect the Government to dissuade Marconi from its course, which is a matter for the company, operating, as it does, in a highly competitive environment; of course, it has to make its own commercial judgments.
My hon. Friend and I will be anxious, however, to ensure that every possible option is considered before the last option of declaring the redundancies. We will want to be satisfied that there are no alternatives of the kind that he has described. I shall meet the trade unions later this week, and I hope that my hon. Friend and I will both have the opportunity to lead a delegation to meet representatives of the company management in the next few weeks.
I also look to the Government to ensure that every help is given to those who have been made redundant. My hon. Friend has described the help being given by the various agencies that are active in Essex, and I add my thanks to all those involved for the swift and compassionate way in which they have responded to what is clearly a serious blow to the town. In particular, I know that Essex training and enterprise council responded extremely quickly and is active in trying to provide help.
The picture is not entirely bleak. There is no doubt that new jobs are being created in Essex. A few months ago, Boulton and Paul, a company making kitchens and doors in my constituency, sadly announced that it would be closing its facility in Maldon, with the loss of about 200 jobs—that is a serious blow to Maldon—but a few weeks later I visited another company, Keltek EDMS, about 100 yards away, which was about to create a new facility in the town, with 220 new jobs, making printed circuit boards.
Inevitably, there will be change in the employment pattern, but it is not all one way. A week ago, I visited one of the most successful employers in Maldon, Industrial Control Services, which makes safety and control systems. I was told that the outlook for the company was extremely bright, that it was winning orders from throughout the world and that if it had a problem it was the shortage of skilled engineers.
New jobs exist. The task that we have now is to try to ensure that those who have lost their jobs at Marconi are swiftly placed in those new jobs. There are various ways in which that can be made to happen. Already, some of the agencies are trying to ensure that it happens as quickly as possible. I want to hear from the Minister tonight about any additional measures that she can offer the constituents of me and my hon. Friend, to ensure that the period of unemployment that sadly faces them is as brief as possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I have listened with great interest to the hon. Members for Chelmsford, West (Mr. Burns) and for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale), and I thank them for the extremely valuable points that they have made. I greatly appreciate the constructive and helpful way in which they have addressed the issue. There is no doubt

that both hon. Gentlemen have done a great deal of work with all the interested parties as constituency Members of Parliament, to ensure that this difficult issue is dealt with as sympathetically as possible.
I share the hon. Members' concern about the redundancies, and I hope that the measures that I outline tonight will show that effective action is being taken to improve the employment prospects of those affected. As they pointed out, the redundancies will have a significant impact on the Chelmsford economy, not only in themselves but in the knock-on effect on the many local suppliers.
When large-scale redundancies occur, co-operation between all local partners is essential. I am grateful that tribute has been paid to the parties concerned. Chelmsford borough council convened a meeting of the key players, including Marconi Communications, at which Essex training and enterprise council offered to co-ordinate the efforts of the partnership, and it has drawn up a plan of action.
I have visited Essex TEC and I know how hard it works. It has assigned an adviser and account manager to keep in close contact with the company. I know that the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West has also met Essex TEC and that it will keep him fully briefed about the activities being undertaken.
Business Link Essex is already working with Marconi to identify suppliers whose businesses may be at risk as a result of the planned redundancies. I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of BLE a few months ago. It is offering support and advice to ensure the continued success of those businesses by developing their activities in other areas.
I totally agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West about the importance of diversification. Chelmsford's great advantage is the skills base of its people. That will do a great deal to ensure that other businesses will grow and flourish.
The Employment Service, together with the Essex careers and business partnership, will provide advice on services and benefits available to those under threat of redundancy, assisting Grosvenor Associates, outplacement consultants engaged by Marconi, in setting up a job shop on the company premises. That will not only have all the vacancies available locally but will offer guidance and assistance to those wishing to make applications for new jobs. Clearly, it will have an important role to play in the area.
For those wishing to go into self-employment, a range of services will be on offer from the Business Development Advisory Service. Support is also available to any start-up businesses set up by redundant workers through the Centre for the Advancement of Manufacturing and Technology in Chelmsford. Essex county council is also offering managed work space as an additional way of supporting those start-up businesses.
In appreciation of the special needs of the redundant workers, the TEC has already waived the six-month qualifying period for access to training for work. It is primarily designed to help unemployed adults to get jobs, including self-employment, as quickly as possible, through an appropriate mix of guidance, training, approved qualifications and structured work experience. The training for work programme in Essex is one of the


most successful in the country, with nearly 60 per cent. of those undertaking it immediately moving into employment.
Those measures are designed to alleviate the immediate needs of the area, but, as the hon. Gentlemen have pointed out, Chelmsford faces considerable long-term difficulties. The town has traditionally been dependent on high-technology, defence-related industry, with Marconi Communications, Marconi Radar Systems and EEV providing most of the employment within that sector. As the hon. Gentlemen said, as a result of the peace dividend and the recession of the early 1990s, there has been a general decline in defence-related manufacturing which, regrettably, has resulted in the redundancies announced by Marconi.
The growth in the service sector has to some extent offset the decline of the manufacturing sector. Public administration provides 26,000 jobs. Both the financial services and the hotel and distribution sectors play a significant part in local employment, providing a further 20,000 jobs. Chelmsford is the main United Kingdom base for Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd. and is also the administrative headquarters of the investment managers. M and G Group.
Chelmsford has a growing reputation as an ideal place for new and expanding businesses to settle. As the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East said, the picture is not all gloomy. It has a strategic location, close to London, Stansted airport and the ports of Tilbury, Harwich and Felixstowe, and its work force is well trained, highly qualified and adaptable, so it is clear why companies such as Royal Mail, Royal Insurance and Barclays Bank have recently chosen Chelmsford. I am sure that, given the skills and abilities of the work force, those will not be the only locations and relocations.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford, West mentioned the KONVER programme. Although the Chelmsford economy has diversified away from defence-related manufacturing, the problems of defence rundown continue. That is why Chelmsford is designated as a KONVER area. Since 1993, KONVER has enabled affected regions to respond to factory closures and deal with high job losses. KONVER funding is already being used to help train and retrain employees of firms dependent on the defence sector in the Chelmsford area. Organisations such as Essex TEC, Essex county council and Anglia polytechnic university have developed a wide range of vocational guidance and vocational training projects. The TEC alone has helped to retrain more than 400 former defence workers since the start of 1996.
More than £1 million from KONVER has been used to establish a regional centre for the advancement of manufacturing and technology, the AMT, whose activities include hands-on experience of modern machine tools, high-level training, technology transfer, prototype development and advice. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West knows, I visited the centre a few months ago and was tremendously impressed by its work. Much knowledge and experience, which can help both well-established and newly established firms, can be found there. The centre clearly enjoys much respect in the local business community.
I am certain that the centre will provide a vital base for re-employment of the well qualified and highly skilled local work force. It helps small and medium-sized firms

to develop new products and improve competitiveness through the introduction of new technologies and training. As the Minister responsible for small firms, I am acutely aware of the needs of small and medium-sized businesses and I am working through the network of Business Links to develop support and advice that can be accessed by all SMEs.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West about SMEs, which are essential to Britain's competitive edge and central to the Government's competitiveness agenda. The encouragement of high-tech SMEs is a key factor in our programme. That is why I believe that our programme is in line with the way in which local businesses in Chelmsford, especially local start-up businesses, can be helped. Chelmsford's work force clearly has the skills, know-how and dedication to make SMEs a success.
Over the past year, the AMT has saved more than 200 jobs in businesses threatened with closure and has directly supported growth in businesses providing a further 100 jobs. It has also run two meet-the-buyer events, attracting more than 100 national and international buyers and providing direct sales meetings for more than 600 local businesses.
The AMT estimates that more than £2.5 million worth of business was brought to Chelmsford in that way. Such work is essential in the climate of redundancies. Any encouragement to start-up businesses is important, in that the development of regional supply chains and networks is vital. That may be one subject which the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West could discuss further with the AMT.
The centre will work with its current partners to interview individuals affected by the latest round of redundancies to ascertain their transferable skills and how it can help by customising training courses to suit their future needs.
The hon. Members have drawn attention to the many people who are unemployed in their constituencies as a result of a series of redundancies at defence manufacturing establishments over the past few years. Tackling unemployment is one of the new Government's key priorities, and we intend to tackle it during lifetime of this Parliament. Our first priority is the "new deal" and measures to reduce unemployment among young and long-term unemployed people. Work is already under way to put that initiative into action.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford, West also stressed the importance of defence procurement decisions to the prosperity of towns such as Chelmsford. As the Prime Minister said, the Government are committed to service. That is an attribute long possessed by our armed forces, which are admired around the globe. Our commitment is to provide them with a longer-term sense of direction and a stable basis for defence policy and planning. The current strategic defence consideration is designed to ensure that our security and defence needs are matched by appropriate capabilities, both for today and for tomorrow's challenges.
Out of that defence consideration will come a procurement policy that will provide industry with the longer-term vision that it needs if it is to realise projects of the highest quality and value for money. If British industry can supply to specification, to cost and to time in a way that represents best overall value for money, it


will ensure success at home and abroad. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West had a useful meeting with my ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Defence.
Our commitment to service and to our armed forces requires that we give them the best equipment to do the tasks that we require of them. However, we are committed to a strong UK defence industry that is a strategic part of our industrial base as well as our defence effort. The industry employs some 360,000 people across the country, wins 90 per cent. by value of our business and, last year, won £5 billion-worth of export orders. That is quite a record.
It is that strength on which we wish to build for the future. We want to maintain strong links between the user and the industrial base. We want a partnership between Government and industry to enhance our economic prospects and our national security. We want to ensure that we maximise the contribution of our defence effort to the wider economy.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West that it is important that regional and industrial policy implications are well understood in taking procurement decisions. That is why my Department works closely with the Ministry of Defence on issues that affect the competitiveness of the UK defence industry. My officials ensure that the industrial implications of MOD procurement decisions are taken into account. They work closely with industry to ensure that all matters are taken into full and active consideration.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford, West asked about defence diversification. We support a strong UK defence industry that is a strategic part of our industrial base as well as of our defence effort. As stated in our manifesto, we believe that some of its expertise could be diversified by extension to civilian use. Nowhere is better equipped for that than Chelmsford.
The objective would be to widen the contribution made by the UK defence industrial base to Britain's economic performance by diversifying some of its technological processes and manufacturing skills into new markets. We

should certainly ensure that the investment that we make in defence equipment research and technology is put to good use for the economy as a whole.
We are actively considering the establishment of an organisation with specific responsibilities for diversification issues. The aim will be to ensure better co-ordination between Government Departments on issues such as regional policy, training and business planning to develop a positive strategy for industrial regeneration.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence told the House on 16 June, we will be making proposals in the autumn on how best to give effect to our objectives for defence diversification. Those proposals will include how best to harness the contribution of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to those objectives. I will certainly ensure that the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West are drawn to the attention of my ministerial colleagues as they formulate their policies in that area.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the hon. Gentlemen that I fully recognise the problems that the redundancies announced by Marconi will create. I welcome the initiatives that local partners are taking. The speed with which that response has been put together underlines the fact that the matter is being taken seriously.
Considerable efforts have also been made in the long-term restructuring of the Chelmsford economy away from defence-related manufacturing. That accounts for the relative prosperity of that part of Essex. Many local agencies can take credit for that. More work remains to be done, however, and we will continue to support the local partners who can best take that forward.
I fully recognise all the difficulties that the redundancies have caused for individual employees and their families. I appreciate the efforts that the local Members of Parliament have made to work constructively with the company, the trade unions and all the local partners. For our part, the Government will ensure that we do all we can to support their efforts.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.